Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Monday, October 09, 2006


"I Never Bought That"

Speaking of nuclear threats (this time of the fictional variety)...

David Sirota watches TV, catches Joe claiming he "never bought" the Cheney argument on Iraq and nuclear weapons.

He'll try to make a semantic distinction between claims of "having" and "developing" nuclear weapons. But it's clear that Joe did buy into the Administration's rationale for war, even though he now says WMD didn't matter:

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN SAID HE SUPPORTED IRAQ INVASION BECAUSE OF WMD: Introducing the Iraq War Resolution on Oct. 2, 2002, Lieberman declared that Saddam ‘has continued, without question, to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them on distant targets.’” As the Norwich Bulletin reported, “the weapons of mass destruction Saddam supposedly stockpiled [was] a key factor Bush and Lieberman cited in arguing for an invasion.” On 6/25/04, Lieberman told CNN that “Iraq did pose a threat to us” because “they had weapons of mass destruction.” He said this long after CNN reported that President Bush’s chief weapons inspector, David Kay, told Congress that “his group [of inspectors] found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.” [CNN, 6/25/04; CNN, 1/25/04; Norwich Bulletin, 12/26/05]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN SAYS WMD WAS A “SIDE BENEFIT”; WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED WAR ANYWAY: On Glenn Beck’s national radio show on 8/22/06, Lieberman agreed with the host that the WMD rationale that he pushed as a justification for war was merely “a nice side benefit” and that the Iraq War was really a vehicle for other objectives. Beck said, “The weapons of mass destruction was a nice side benefit. We were trying to go and pop the head of the snake in Iran. That’s what we were trying to do. And I don’t think anybody had the courage or could actually come out and say that with world politics the way they are.” Lieberman immediately agreed, saying “You’re right.” [Glenn Beck radio show, 8/22/06]

Meanwhile, North Korea has apparently tested a nuclear weapon, Iran is about to go nuclear, and Iraq is in a civil war.

And Sen. Lieberman still - to this day - defends his own rationale for using false pretenses to get into this needless, counterproductive war of choice.
What does "pop the head of the snake in Iran" mean? This is not the first time I've seen that idea. The reporters who cover this campaign out to ask Sen. Lieberman what that means since he agreed with it.
O.k. I read the Sirotta piece and also thought that "splitting hairs" was correct IF indeed Cheney said that Iraq HAD nuclear weapons. So, I googled and discovered at whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826/hmtl in a speech Cheney gave to the VFW, that what he actually said was that the administration knew that Iraq was developing nuclear capability. He did not say "had nuclear weapons." Thus, Lieberman sets up a false premise in order to confuse the issue. Same old, same old.
Post a Comment

<< Home