You should also point out that Lieberman said he "hoped" McCain's presidential days were not over

That's a pretty roundabout way of calling for an invasion no?

" "I agree with John," he told the gathering, tossing out his prepared remarks on the Iran issue to spend more time instead lobbying for greater international involvement in Sudan."

Doesen't exactly ring like a bloodthirsty call to war.

except not.

throw the bum out.

Still for Joe...

I have to agree with Evan Bayh on the Iran issue though but I do believe we need to intervene in Sudan with regards to Darfur.

"UPDATE: Oh. My. God. Lieberman is supporting right-wing Republican John McCain for President"

"Lieberman told The Associated Press. "And my presidential campaign days are over _ I hope his aren't." "

Yeah, that sure seems like a ringing endorsment of McCain for 08'. Perhaps he should have said "I hope no Republican runs for office ever again, and that includes my friends & colleagues."

"You can register your concerns about this right-wing out-of-touch lunatic here."

Yes a 'right-wing out-of-touch lunatic' with a lifetime 100% from NARAL, 86% by the National Education Association,  100% by the American Public Health Association, 84% rating by the AFL-CIO and 100% by the ARA. Not to mention these   resounding scores from various conservative interest groups; 15% by the National Taxpayer's Union (Big Spender), 0% by the Christian Coalition, and a mighty lifetime score of 16 (out of 100) from the American Conservative Union.

Dear God! Save us from this radical right wing lunatic!!!

The outrage here is not that Lieberman is supporting McCain but that both of them are wanting to start a war that would be a cataclism for the world and most certainly escalate into nuclear exchanges. We need to raise holy hell starting now to prevent a military strike on Iran. According to reports the date has been set for the end of March with bunker busting nuclear tipped bombs and missiles. Does anyone really think it will end there? This will be a major military confrontation with China and Russia. The exchange of missiles will escalate within minutes and the whole Muslim world will rise up in defense of Iran. This must be avoided at all cost, and now. If the American people are alerted, they will oppose such a reckless and dangerous endeavor.

Guess old Joe is ready to lead the troops himself?!  Over the top Joe!

The problem is this idiotic war in Iraq was always the wrong war. I have heard Congressman Jerry Nadler say many times that an Iran with nuclear weapons is a true threat to the United States.They are religious fanatics who would just as soon blow themselves up along with the US and Israel. Saddam, on the other hand, was never a threat. He was just a thug like a few dozen other such sorts who was more concerned with his own survival than anything else.

But unfortunately because of the ill advised Iraq misadventure, too many Americans are losing their stomach for what would be a proper war.In addition there are two other obstacles.1)our troops are too tied up in Iraq and 2)the Bush administration cannot be trusted to conduct even a legitimate war, as they messed up in Afghanistan which was a legitimate effort to get Osama yet they let him go at Tora Bora.

I appeal to my friends here in the blogosphere and the progressive community. Don't be so quick to ever rule out military action to protect our interests. It just has to be a real threat and conducted by an administration that has America's goals, not the goals of the right-wing community.

Lieberman is running for SecDef, mark my words.

Rumsfeld won't be allowed to fuck up a second war.

Lieberman is the man for Iran. Split the Senate Democrats, provide 'bipartisan' cover, give the media their 'even the Democrats' ammo,  the whole nine yards.

Republicans don't have to actually invade Iran for it to serve their real purpose. They don't care about Iran's nukes any more than we do. They know fully well that any real invasion or bombing would be economic and military suicide.

Their purpose is to use it to flog Democrats in the 2006 elections because either Democrats will look weak for not supporting Iran invasion or will look like faux Republicans for supporting it.

It will also serve to heighten security fears which help Republicans.

Iran is a Republican bluff. We need to call their bluff by calling them out on it. We need to use the word itself "bluff".

In fact Iran is bluffing as well.

Consider Pluto's diary on MyLeftWing from last month.

In November 2000, because Saddam Hussein was pissed about the sanctions against Iraq (after all, he had no weapons and had let the U.N. inspectors in to prove it), Iraq suddenly stopped accepting U.S. dollars for their oil. It was a pure political move on Saddam's part. He forced the U.S. buy the oil with euros -- which meant that we had to exchange dollars for euros in order to buy oil. Needless to say, that sent the euro through the roof and the dollar sank like a stone in the global currency markets.

Selling oil through the U.N. Oil for Food Program, Iraq also converted all of its U.S. dollars in its U.N. account to the euro. Next, Saddam converted $10 billion in Iraq's U.N. reserve fund to the euro. By the end of 2000, Iraq had abandoned the U.S. dollar completely. The E.U. was happy.

However, this caused serious problems to the U.S. economy and freaked the Federal Reserve badly. The U.S. had no choice but to invade and seize control of Iraq. The U.S. actually didn't want the oil, it wanted to be able to purchase it with petro-dollars. It's really that simple. That's why the "intelligence" for war had to be fixed.

Two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was ended. Iraq's accounts were switched back to dollars, and the U.S. could now buy oil with petro-dollars. Furthermore, no one else in the world could buy oil from Iraq with the euro. Universal global dollar supremacy was restored. (That's why Europe wouldn't play the war game with us.)

The so-called "oil for food scandal" is just political payback for those who defected to the euro. So is Saddam's fake trial. The world leaders and money watchers know this. We shorted the euro when the U.S. invaded Iraq.

The latest recession in the United States began and ended within the same time frame that Iraq was trading oil for euros. It's not a coincidence; politics really are that simple. All you gotta do is follow the dollar. Everything else is just noise designed to distract you. End of story.

In March 2006, Iran will take Iraq's switch to the petro-euro to outrageous new heights. Iran is launching a third oil exchange -- a petro-euro system for oil trade, which when enacted, will once again threaten U.S. dollar supremacy and to a far greater degree than Iraq's euro conversion did.

If Iran is planning to seriously undercut the value of the dollar in international markets, our government may very well be planning to invade them, and soon.  Moreover, we may all be in serious trouble no matter if we do or do not invade Iran.

The sad part is it will be hard for US to invade Iran--militarily and economically as it is still fighting the civil war in Iraq.

I'm sure that threatening military action won't motivate Iran to continue developing nukes. Not one bit. Wouldn't want to dissuade invasion or anything.

Maybe it just doesn't get attention because of selective blogging and whatnot, but does Lieberman ever come out in support of a Democrat or Democratic principle? Ever? One single time?

I've had enough. Let Joe rot.

Has anyone ever considered that the Iranians WANT the US to launch airstrikes and/or saber rattle against them?

Think about it.

The Iranian hardliners get their support from the growing anti-Americanism and anti-semitism that exists within the region. They don't believe for one second that the US has the ability to "overthrow" its regime.

Iran holds all the cards in the middle east. That is the consequence of Bush's policy. The US took out two of Iran's enemies on its borders:

1) The Taliban in Afghanistan. Supported by Pakistan. Now the country is governed by a number of warlords - almost all of whom (in the north and east) are Shi'ite with ties to Iran.

2) Saddam Hussein. The Sunni Arab. Replaced by a government that is Shi'ite and overwhelmingly pro-Iranian.

To make matters worse, Bush's entire strategy of "democratizing" the middle east has led to the election of hardliners such as Hamas.

If they want, they can create an uprising in either Afghanistan or Iraq and tie our hands even further there. They are probably hiding their armies in case of an attack. It would be probably the dumbest thing on Earth for Bush to attack Iran, much less invade it. And they know it. That's why they behave the way they do. Our hands are tied because of Iraq.

So President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Ayatollah and Mullahs don't believe for one second that the US will invade. That is why they are taunting them with these statements denying that the Holocaust ever took place and rebuilding their nuclear program.

You think airstrikes will "end" their nuclear program? Does the Bush Administration even know where these facilities are? They are probably deep underground somewhere. Thus making a conventional air strike incapable of reaching them.

Then these hardliners will enhance their own position within the Iranian government - blasting the US and its actions - and forcing the population of Iran to go along, unless they are "soft" or "traitors."

Iranian hardliners get a political boost every time their "enemies" threaten or attack them. Just as our hardliners do here in America.

It's too bad Bush, Lieberman, McCain and their supporters are too stupid to realize this.

...but I do have to agree, the title of this post is not an accurate reflection of what Lieberman said.

"Yes, it is."

Well I guess that settles it!

Matt = Dishonest.

Here are the known facts about Iran's nuclear program:

1- Iran has a legitimate economic case for nuclear power, which the US (including some of the members of the current Bush administration) encouraged. (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art icles/A3983-2005Mar26.html  and http://www.atimes.com/atimes/ Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html)

2- Iran's enrichment program was not clandestine, and was widely reported in the nuclear industry literature & on Iranian radio.  Iran's deals with countries like CHina to make the necessary plants had been reported to the  IAEA, and the IAEA had even visited Iran's uranium mines in 1992. (See Le
Monde Diplomatique: "Iran Needs Nuclear Energy, Not Weapons" November 2005)

3- While there were undeclared facilities in Iran, the IAEA reported in  Nov 2003 that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons program."

4- In Nov 2004, the IAEA reported that "all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not  diverted to prohibited activities."

5- In Jan 2006, the IAEA reported that "Iran has continued to facilitate access under its Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency . . . including by providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and access to locations."

6- Repeated offers of compromise by Iran that would have addressed the risk of proliferation of nukes were simply dismissed without any consideration. Most recently, Iran's Jan 2006 offer to continue the suspension of enrichment for another 2 years of additional negotiations were summarily dismissed, and not even reported in the US press though it
was reported in the Iranian press (see
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East /HB07Ak01.html )

Oh yeah, there's also a "magic laptop" which has literally fallen out of the blue sky, and conveniently provides all the evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran that no one else has found after 3 years of inspections.

So, there we have it. Draw your own conclusions.