Political Punks
A useful word that has fallen into disfavor, “punk†should be revived for the current political discourse over Iran.
The loose-lipped Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad certainly fits the primary definition of an inexperienced, combative young thug.
Over here, we have his aging American counterpart Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has never seen a Middle East confrontation he didn’t like, today spouting off on CBS’ Face the Nation that “we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,”
Although prudently ruling out a “massive ground invasion†now, Jolting Joe insists, “We cannot let them get away with it. If we do, they’ll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home.”
Secondary definitions of punk include “dry, decayed wood†and “poor, of worthless quality.†It’s a very useful word.
Cross posted from my blog.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Political Punks”
Robert – I almost lost my lunch when I saw the clip of his FTN comments. I honestly think he is losing it. He has become paranoid about Muslims. They are all bogeymen in his mind and he can no longer distinquish between the various muslim groups – Iraqi, Al Queda, Iranian, Syrian, Hezballah, Hamas etc are all the same to him. So is his solution to all problems muslim – kill’em. I have many relatives in Israel who spout the same crap as Lieberman. In fact, Joe may have moved to the right of his namesake in Israel.
Why military action as the only course? Iran does not produce enough gasoline to supply it’s economy, cut that off and watch the Mullahs try to quell the civic unrest; and explain to the Iranian people that building nuclear facilities was smarter than building refineries.
[...] behavior in this matter (hand-picked, in part, from MemeOrandum’s blogger roundup): The Moderate Voice; The Reaction; Think Progress; Talking Points Memo; Democratic Underground (Adult language [...]
You think that was bad? Lieberman was on Sean Hannity’s talk radio show on Friday afternoon, and the two of them we’re chumming it up together about how much they supported the war in Iraq and how withdrawing from Iraq would endanger the national security of the U.S. Lieberman took pride in the fact that he’s an “Independent”, and yet he didn’t take issue with a single thing that Hannity said with regards to the war.
Hannity has repeatedly questioned the patriotism of those who have criticized the war. He has called them “apologists”, “appeasers”, and “leftists.” And yet Lieberman calls Hannity a friend and seemingly agrees wholeheartedly with his warmongering rhetoric.
There’s a name for people who parrot Hannity’s partisan rhetoric, and it ain’t “Independent.”
1) Joe Lieberman is no thug.
2) If the US is NOT preparing for action against Iran, it would be very, very stupid.
I agree that saber-rattling is not wise. But Holly’s point is spot on. Iran is being governed by a man who makes repeated references about obliterating Israel. I doubt that he would stop there.
Holly -
Never fear, plans for war exist.
However, there is a huge and crucial difference between preparing for a possible war, if it can’t be avoided, and announcing to the enemy that we see war as the only solution. He just gave Iran carte blanche to do anything and everything to hutt the US and to abbreviate the life expectancy of Israel.
Lieberman is a loose bullet looking for a target. This time, the bullet landed in both Iran and Washington, DC.
He is a thug, because he is playing the role of a hold-up man in the world of international relations.