Speaking at the press conference, Joe Lieberman drew interesting parallels between the social, political and religious crises of today and the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930's and 1940's during the time of Adolf Hitler (who Lieberman never mentioned by name). According to Lieberman:
"There are people who have spoken of this moment in our history as if it were the '30s. And there's some parallels I fear there.... Some people say the war in Iraq is comparable to the Second World War in the late thirties and the failure to grasp the growing threat of fascism before it was almost too late. The painful irony in this moment in our history is that while in some senses it is comparable to the 1930's, it's also already 1942 because Pearl Harbor in this war has already happened on 9/11/01 and in the progeny of horrific terrorist attacks that have occurred throughout the world."
Lieberman's unspecified references to "There are people" and "Some people say" as the sources promoting the parallels between today's "Islamic extremists" and World War II Nazis, were sheer semantics. A purposeful contrivance to offset allegations that these are Joe Lieberman's views shaped by his zionist ideology.
"The enemy we are fighting is an axis of evil. It is totalitarian. It is inhumane. It has a violent ideology and a goal of expansionism and totalitarianism. It threatens our security, our values, our way of life, as seriously in my opinion as fascism and communism did in the last century.... The tentacles of Iran... are all over the region and they're inviting, and in some senses beginning to shape new alliances that go across the previous lines of division which simplistically were seen as Arabs versus Israelis."
Lieberman defines Iran as a principal source of terrorism with 'tentacles all over the region,' which by insinuation attributes a level of responsibility to Iran for the attacks of September 11th. Lieberman is clearly developing a case that Iran in 2007 is Germany after 1942, since according to Lieberman's interpretation, "Pearl Harbor in this war has already happened."
One might conclude that Lieberman's devotion to Israel, far and above his devotion to the United States, is the driving force behind his desire to escalate the War on Iraq into a totalitarian war on "Islamic extremists."
Most frightening is the vagueness with which Lieberman and McCain describe "Islamic extremists." By their mutually unclear definition, an "Islamic extremist," can be any Islamic in the Middle East region and beyond, who espouses a dislike of, or anger toward, the United States. Therefore, any islamic is potentially an "Islamic extremist." Much like any non-Jew in Germany was presumably a Nazi. Both men's rhetoric is inflammatory and dangerous, since they draw no clear distinction between which Islamists are the enemy and which Islamists are not.
Using such vague characterization of the enemy gives way to open warfare on the entire Islamic population. A possible genocide which could make America the Germany of the 1940's.
John McCain's motivation to send more troops to Iraq is less clear, but equally dangerous. Even if tens of thousands of American troops are sent to Iraq, employing the "Powell Doctrine" of overwhelming force as Lieberman and McCain advise, it is still impossible to kill every radical who hates the United States, unless the United States commits purposeful genocide. The only universal identifying factor to determine the enemy as offered by Lieberman and McCain is that they are all Islamic. This is too broad a definition to define one's enemy in war. Escalating warfare with so broad based an enemy may lead to an all-out World War.
Diplomacy is by far the better route. Yes it is difficult. Not all participants will be honest. Not all will easily engage. But, in truth, the United States hasn't always been honest or so eager to engage. Still it's certainly worth a try. Bullying threats of overwhelming force, coupled with the refusal to negotiate with one's enemies is the coward's way out. These are insufficient methods to ward off potential genocide. It's much more humane to speak with one's enemies than to attempt to destroy them all.
The potential numbers of innocents, perversely termed 'collateral damage,' who would be killed by escalating the war, could reach unimaginable numbers. Far beyond the 650,000 already dead Iraqis. World hatred for America would intensify even more.
As a Vietnam veteran and former Prisoner of War, McCain is operating from the premise of 'win at all costs.' Listening to his assessment of the outcome of the Vietnam War, it is clear McCain believes the United States' withdrawal was premature, even though by doing so thousands more American deaths were prevented.
McCain is well aware of the potential casualties of American troops and innocent Iraqis by escalating the Iraq War. He must also be aware that the more people the United States kills, the more enemies the United States makes. There is no clear win for the United States in Iraq, which even McCain reticently admits. It makes much more sense to withdraw our troops now to prevent the killing of anymore.
McCain had this to say of the Iraq War:
"When I raised my hand and I voted to send this nation to war, I did it with the full and certain knowledge that it was one of the most gravest responsibilities that I could have as a United States Senator because I knew that young men were gonna to die. I hope that my colleagues felt that same sense of responsibility when they voted for this war and the fact is that these young men and women who are serving today, although they will be 'over-stressed' if we proceed with this plan, will more than willingly shoulder their weapons and fight and do the best that they can for the United States of America."
'Over-stressed troops'?? Senator McCain's own assessment of the "over-stressed" condition of our troops is reason enough not to expand this war.
McCain goes on:
"When Joe and I were visiting with these brave people, we saw a sense of purpose, a commitment to finish the job and do the job that the finest military in the history of this nation is capable of performing. And my colleagues who took this vote to support this war, I hope they didn't think that throughout our history that wars go according to plans. They don't, with rare exceptions. I didn't think this one was gonna go according to plan and I knew there was going to be significant sacrifices asked of American families.... "
Another pathetic admission by McCain: 'Wars don't go according to plan,' which Mr. McCain knew would happen all along. To restate McCain's words, "I didn't think this one [Iraq War] was gonna go according to plan and I knew there was going to be significant sacrifices asked of American families... "
Considering Mr. McCain's assertion that in war things just always go wrong, one might logically conclude that when a military hero dies, the military envoys who inform the family should begin their condolences with 'Ooops!'
But what is most unfathomable and consistently sad, is media's refusal to ask every warhawk the most patriotic and relevant question of all: Who in YOUR family is serving or planning to serve in YOUR war? This is a particularly legitimate question to ask of those who support this war. Yet, to my knowledge not one member of media has ever asked it.
WHY NOT? If war is a noble cause and this is a noble war, then it is noble for THEIR loved ones to fight it.
Senator McCain's young son, Jimmy, recently enlisted in the Marines. Perhaps one of the many well-known journalists attending this press conference could have asked Mr. McCain if his valiant young son will be one of the thousands he is seeking to deploy.
Mr. Lieberman has four children. Why didn't the press ask Senator Lieberman which of HIS children will be going to fight HIS war. Conscription into military service is mandatory in Israel at eighteen years old. Mr. Lieberman certainly wouldn't object to his children being in the service if they resided in Israel. So, following that reasoning, why wouldn't it be okay for Mr. Lieberman's children to be in service in the United States?
MEDIA, ASK THE WARHAWKS THIS QUESTION! If you can ask about their support for the war, then you can question their investment in it!!