Lieberman Lends His Name To Fear-Mongering Documentary On American Muslims And Terrorism
Joe Lieberman, who is locked in a fight to hold onto his Senate Homeland Security Committee chairmanship, is lending his name to a lurid sequel of the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West. That film, which was distributed through newspaper inserts and mass mailings to 28 million swing-state households during the campaign, was denounced by religious leaders for painting all Muslims with the same broad brush and for its cartoonish portrayal of Islamic terrorism.
The new documentary, called The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America, focuses on the "hidden war against the freedom and values we all take for granted" being waged by radical Islamists trying to take down America from within. Among other things, the film warns of the "subtle dangers of non-violent cultural jihad and its influence in America's universities."
The Third Jihad's backers plan to disseminate the film through TV licensing, free screenings, and DVD distribution, The Jewish Week of New York reported.
After Obsession was sent out in the run-up to the election, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic described it as "the work of hysterics." One rabbi quoted by The Jewish Week called Obsession "the protocols of the learned elders of Saudi Arabia."
While The Third Jihad focuses on the domestic threat of radical Islam, it uses the same tactics as Obsession, showing clips of burning churches and a beheading, alternately set to techno-rock and call-to-prayer-evoking tracks. It goes after groups like the Muslim Students Association and the Islamic Society Of North America -- a large umbrella group of Muslim organizations around the U.S. And it plays up an FBI-uncovered "secret document ... believed to be the manifesto of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America" outlining plans to eliminate Western civilization from within.
Senator Lieberman is pictured as a "Major Player" on the featured interviews page of The Third Jihad Web site, along with National Review writer Mark Steyn, Jim Woolsey, and Walid Phares of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Beginning at around the 9-minute mark in this preview of the film, Lieberman appears. "It is definitely here," he says. "I don't want to overstate the problem, but there is a danger of understating the problem of homegrown Islamist terrorism. And the fact is that we have now had a series of cases that have thankfully been broken."
Why, oh why, does Obama want to keep this man on the roster?
November 10, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't want Lieberman's blood on his hands.
November 10, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen any actual quote from Obama, just some offhand speculation that I think everyone is making too big of a deal about.
November 10, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Report is that Obama favors L. staying in the caucus but that's pretty wide open, and it leaves L. free to leave if he cannot work out a deal with Reid et al. I don't see how this DVD business changes that for Obama, but it might well change things for the caucus, thus leading L. to sh** or get off the pot.
November 10, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Letting Lieberman keep his chair makes Democrats look weak. That's how Republicans will perceive it; that's how most Democrats perceive it. Lose-lose in my book.
November 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why am I not the least bit surprised?
November 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice work, Joe. This is really going to help your case. I'm sure it will be well-received in the caucus. They'll probably want to make you Majority Leader.
November 10, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um.....people.........
Short clips and interviews can be used WITHOUT PERMISSION as part of the 'Fair Use' Doctrine.
When someone can post EVIDENCE that Lieberman 'approved' of this use of his words and likeness, then we can talk.
November 10, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I obviously haven't seen the DVD, but I fail to see how this could possibly fall under section 107. The only possible excuse would be that a third-party holder of the copyright for the clips used in the film licensed them to the DVD producers. A fair use defense (or fair use right, depending on who you ask) seems incredibly thin.
November 10, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
icia:
COPYRIGHT LAW does NOT apply here. 'Fair use' permits the use of copyrighted materials WITHOUT PERMISSION - as long as they are brief and do not intentionally slander or libel.
The clip is available in several places.
November 10, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
As this IS Lieberman, it's very reasonable to buy the notion that he doesn't disapprove of this kind of anti-Islamic boogeyman rhetoric. At worst, I hardly think he is up in arms about the suggestion that this garbage has his imprimatur.
November 10, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possibly.
But there hasn't been TIME for him to react - nor has he been confronted with this as yet (apparently).
I suggest we wait until he has been publicly confronted by this.
Seem fair?
Don't get me wrong - I think Lieberman should be punished - severely. But I also think we need to choose our words carefully when accusing him.
If he DID approve of this, I would suggest stripping him of all power and reduce him to a chair occupier while he serves out the remainder of his term - and throw him out for a real Democrat in 2012.
November 10, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether he formally approved of the use of his video or not misses the point. He's been going around saying much the same thing for the last seven years, which is the reason they've got so much material to use. It's an implicit approval.
Besides, there's more than enough reason to strip him of his chairmanship without the video.
November 10, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
BUt the quote in the video IS PERFECTLY LOGICAL and not INFLAMMATORY. It simply calls for increased vigilance of radical Islamic groups.
The fact that it was INCLUDED in this DVD without his knowledge is the whole point.
INCLUSION in no way indicates AGREEMENT or ENDORSEMENT if it is done without consent.
Or do you really believe Obama SUPPORTED PROP 8 (since his image and words were used in flyers supporting it).
November 10, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness, wasn't he used by both sides, while his own words only supported the losing side?
November 10, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually - as with many politicians - Obama can speak out of both sides of his mouth - and therefore appear to support both sides of an issue.
The Prop 8 YES side did not lie. Obama is ON RECORD as 'opposing gay marriage' - which is precisely what Prop 8 advocated.
On the other hand, he SPECIFICALLY CALLED for a 'NO' vote on Prop 8.
So BOTH sides could accurately (if not honestly) quote his position and have that quote be 'true'.
Of course, his 'opposition' to Prop 8 is on procedural grounds - not any firmly held conviction about the issue (unless, of course, he is merely keeping his TRUE position secret to aid in his election - a position I maintain is probably the truth) - but still.....
November 10, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has consistently espoused the view that Muslims as a group are dangerous and that any Muslim country is untrustworthy. His extreme hawkish views are entirely consistent with both videos, and if his many public statements don't demonstrate agreement and/or endorsement, I can't imagine what would.
November 10, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to the TIME required for Joe's response, a few minutes ought to do, don't you think? I think the "no time" angle is just silly.
November 11, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair use is codified in the 1976 Copyright Act, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Read the section 107 exceptions to copyright infringement and tell me how its application excuses an unlicensed use of these clips, if in fact they were taken from elsewhere without permission. Like I said, the only excuse is that the clips aren't copyrighted or were used with permission (believing, of course, your claim that this group isn't responsible for the interview itself).
November 11, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
And here comes Joe Lieberman with still more willfully ignorant neocon bigotry.
Of course Obama says he wants Lieberman to stay in the Dem caucus, but that in no way means the turncoat keeps his congressional check over foreign policy
November 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck Bill Clinton for making calls on Lieberschmuck's behalf. Lieberschmuck is anything but a man of principle -- he is a sleazebag who stoops to the lowest forms of demagoguery and fear-mongering to advance an extremist neo-Con foreign policy agenda. The asshole needs to be off the Homeland Security committee NOW.
I know Obama has been reported as being "agnostic" on this question, and I imagine it's in his interest to appear magnanimous rather than vindictive. Nevertheless, putting a little fear into the minds of any Dem who would think of crossing him is not a bad idea either.
As far as the Senate Dems who have the final word on all this, they should borrow one of Hillary's balls and do the right thing.
November 10, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean she didn't give one to her husband who is doing Joe's cheerleading?
November 10, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think maybe she got her third by stealing it from Bill.
November 10, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.
November 11, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wholeheartedly agree. Having him the caucus is fine with me. But he has demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of ethics and wisdom that does not warrant the power of chairmanship of any committee.
I find it absolutely immature in an exponential way for him to say 'if I don't keep my chairmanship, I'm going to go caucus with the republicans'. That is just absolutely childish.
I don't see how he can remain true to himself and caucus with the republicans. He should not be a committee chair period. He was not doing a good job in the position. We have better qualified senators. I object to the idea that committee chairmanships would be given based only on seniority, rather than who is best qualified for the position.
The people creating these jihad videos are just nutso people and they are trying to manipulate the american people. Feels like more of the same energy we have just defeated in the election.
November 10, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if Lieberman leaves the Dem caucus as he has threatened, he will most likely continue to vote with them on some issues.
If he does run to the Republicans and join their caucus and vote spitefully against the Dems, it's not all bad, as that will likely seal his fate in the 2012 election in 4 years, and after he loses, President Obama will have a better Connecticut Dem Senator to work with in his second term.
November 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put him on a very short leash, pull his chairmanship and change is committees (get creative here). I'd love to see him set loose to wander in the wilderness for awhile but he may come in useful once he knows whose boss. But, he's got to be a lot less valuable to those who voted for him, those who have contributed and those he has been representing (in the broad sense).
November 10, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No need to get carried away. Senator Lieberman is not Senator McCarthy.
The latter Solon used to worry about internal subversion by a crew of foreign agitators who lacked most of the advantages that M. Bin Lรกdin and Dr. Zawรกhirรญ and their associates dispose of at present. The poor old Commies had to make do with a European or Eurasian Great Power encumbered with lots of hydrogen bombs and rockets and tanks and submarines and riflemen and the like, and one entirely lacking the ideological appeal and cultural congeniality of neo-Islam.
Especially since September 2001, "non-violent cultural jihad and its influence in America's universities" have become so extraordinarily appealing that it is a wonder so few Homelanders have yet perverted.
Scientific Socialism, by contrast, was always utterly exotic, completely unconnected with Western Sieve. The John Birch Society et hoc genus omne might as well have been afraid weโd all turn into Martians overnight.
To editorialize briefly: the chief trouble with Neocomrade J. I. Lieberman is a shortage of courage rather than of prudence and sound judgment, though to be sure he does not distinguish himself in either field.
Happy days.
November 10, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton making calls on Lieberman's behalf is unseemly to me. How long are we to be plagued by Bill Clinton's meddling? Most ex-presidents bow out of the play by play of politics under their successors. He can be forgiven for having a higher profile while his wife ran for president, but that show is over. Is he going to be a bad penny forever? Also, the image of him lobbying on behalf of the man who attacked Obama for the last year is an ugly one. What is the plan- to install Lieberman as chair of HS committee so that he can chip away at Obama, weaken him, and open up the room for another Hillary challenge? Or what? Whatever it is, it seems degrading.
Bill, to quote the old Bill Hicks tune, how can we miss you when you won't go away?
November 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would love to hear what Al Gore thinks of his old running mate!
November 10, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's clarify something here. Did he give that interview for the movie, or are they just quoting him? The former should be the end of Lieberman, the latter.. well, nothing new, I guess.
November 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate this little shit, but I don't know what the point is of keeping on with this because I read at HuffPo that Obama is probably going let Lieberman stay.
So we can be mad all we want, but til we're president or the majority leader, we're kind of stuck with him.
Now the howling begins.
I don't care what President Obama does right now - whatever he thinks will work.
November 10, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't say I like it... but I also have a strange feeling this will turn out to be quite a shrewd move on Obama's side.
November 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not really Obama's decision - it's up to the Dem caucus. While I'm sure they will give his wishes proper weight, it's their decision, and I don't think there's any way Reid or the caucus can let Lieberman off without any kind of accountability. He won't be kicked out of the caucus, but he's not going to keep his committee chair. They can give him the chairmanship of the pizza committee. That's more than McConnell is able to offer.
November 10, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Technically, it isn't. But per reports Obama's preference is, apparently, to let Liebersuck stay in the Dem caucus. And that can affect the narrative around this.
Personally I wouldn't mind keeping him in the dem caucus as long as they strip him of the current chairmanship (i.e., he is a rightwingassheadfuckwitnutjob when it comes to foreign policy/national security and we never want him to maintain oversight power on that but otherwise we can tolerate him).
November 10, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it's not - it's up to the Senate.
I just read that he had told leadership he was in favor of not throwing Lieberman out of the caucus. And he's head of the party. That's all I read about it -besides speculation about what Lieberman may end up with -
November 10, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody else think that Bill Clinton screwing over Reid here in hopes of having him lose leadership? Reid makes a big play that Lieberman needs to be held accountable - what happens if nothing happens to Lieberman if there is an open caucus vote?
Who else would be in line for Senate leadership? Sen. Clinton has a lot of Party credit banked after her stumping for President-Elect Obama.
I mean I was under the belief that Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate because Lieberman was a harsh critic of Clinton during the Lewinsky issue. And the Clinton's never forget, so there has to be an ulterior motive here other than "Joe Lieberman is a good guy".
November 10, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doubtful that Hillary has the seniority for the leadership position.
November 10, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
November 10, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would depend on who else would really want it. Hillary is low on the totem pole seniority-wise, 68th overall and about 38th in the Dem Caucus, but I think Hillary would have the backing if she wanted it. I mean you'd have the Clinton machine and the Chicago machine behind her.
November 10, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's part of the overall problem here - Droopy does have seniority - lots of it.
And I can understand why they don't want to set a precedent of throwing senators with seniority off committees for disagreeing. I know it's more than just disagreeing - we all do and so does Obama.
But apparently it's not going to be enough that he broke his promise about going negative.
November 10, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can tell from Bill calling on Liebersuck's behalf is, well, at least it seems Bill has put the Monica thing behind with Liebersuck...
Bill wants to remain relevant, that's for sure. Beyond that, I'm not sure.
November 10, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think about it.
Lieberman may be needed for something far out on the political horizon that's only known to a few. He may serve a useful purpose and being nice to him now would guarantee his cooperation later. There's some serious politics at play here with people in the know holding their cards close to themselves.
November 10, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think about it.
Lieberman may be needed for something far out on the political horizon that's only known to a few. He may serve a useful purpose and being nice to him now would guarantee his cooperation later. There's some serious politics at play here with people in the know holding their cards close to themselves.
November 10, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether we agreed Lieberman should or should not be keel-hauled is immaterial. It's the Senate's boy-wonder and its' their job to decide his fate. And theirs alone - what we want don't figure into their calculations. Pres. Obama doesn't want him lynched by the Senate to make a political statement so that doesn't leave much maneuver room for Reid And if I were Reid, I sure as hell wouldn't want to piss off the commander-in-chief before he's sworn into office. He could make Reid's job pure hell for the next two years.
So a knee-jerk reaction now could be a severe penalty later down the road. You may wish you were much easier on him if the political tide turns. That's why its called politics.
November 10, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, Reid, tell me... would you now please retract your words that Liebersuck is not a right-wing nutjob? Because he is. Very.
November 10, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all seriousness, I believe Lieberman is suffering from some PTSD like mental disorder triggered by 9/11. He's got to be kicked off Homeland Security. He can't be trusted with that kind of information. He's nuts. I feel sorry for him, but he's gone around the bend.
November 10, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting problem for Obama. So far his instincts have proven to be very good. I would love to see them kick Lieberman in the a@@ but
if they do he will go vote with the Republicans.
Thats his implied threat. I guess we will see what happens.
November 10, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks -- I'd suggest we all go back upthread and read the observations by Gay Ithacan.
It sounds like there's no proof that Lieberman has approved this use of his words. Justin Elliott is getting a little sloppy about attribution --or at any rate the headline is a little sloppy.
Personally, I scorn, despise, and revile Lieberman. But we're the reality-based community, and we're supposed to respect rules of evidence before playing "guilt by association."
November 10, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
HuffingtonPost is running a thread that the source for Palin's comment about Africa was an elaborate hoax. Turns out the same person is responsible for a press release to open a casino in the Green Zone in Baghdad. And using Iraqi television news cameras to cover the event to boot!
November 10, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make Joe Lieberman the ambassador to Israel and call it a day.
Seriously.
November 10, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering the Jewish vote for Obama, I don't see how Joe can even claim he represents mainstream Jewish voters. He couldn't help McCain carry Florida and he couldn't help Gore carry Florida. Joe represents Joe and other neocons extremists.
November 10, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ambassador to Antarctica, is more like it.
November 10, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it when Jews violently take over a piece of land someone else is living on, laying claim to it because their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago, and proceed to subjugate and abuse the present occupants -- we don't call that "Radical Judaism." But when Muslims, who hold their beliefs just as strongly and sincerely as the Jews do theirs, say loudly -- and if necessary, violently -- they want foreign troops and foreign influence out of the country they've actually lived in for thousands of years, that's "Radical Islam" and its adherents are labeled fanatics, murderers and towel-headed loonies?
I guess it's the same mindset that allows us to blow up wedding parties in Afghanistan and somehow don't get that upset about it. Of course, if Afghanis or anyone else was blowing up wedding parties over here, well that would just be unendurable evil, wouldn't it?
I'm getting so sick of hypocrisy on the grand scale that we practice it these days.
November 10, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and I'm Jewish, btw.
More emphatically, let's say Christian Radicalism is responsible for most of the damage done to the world in the last few hundred years and call it a wash and start over, with NO radicalism anywhere.
November 11, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where do I sign up for that??!
November 11, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
November 11, 2008 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about the film but I do know that Lieberman lost my respect when he spoke against Obama for the McCain Campaign. I definitely believe he should lose his Chairmanship and far as the caucus is concerned, I think he chose his party ties during the campaign. Are we to believe that after supporting the Republicans, that he now wants to flip-flop back to the Democrats? After all, he disagreed with Obama's ideas, so now is he going to embrace them? I don't think so. So what good is he anyway? I just don't believe in him anymore. He's lost my respect and trust.
November 10, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strip Lieberman Homeland Security Chair and then let the chips fall. Anything less demonstrates that the Democratic Senate is as weak as the GOP has always claimed. Lieberman cannot help himself. He is a self rightous camera hogging blowhard with an Israel first, America last aggenda. Americans support Israel, but Lieberman behaves values it over America. He is the most opportunistic selfish Senator around.
November 10, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This vile, hateful, war mongering zionist will stop at nothing to smear all Muslims everywhere whenever he can. He is a despicable human waste. He would love to set the world on fire, killing, destruction, blood. Look at his history in the past 20 years. Nothing of value whatsoever EXCEPT an unending support for Israel with our money, our soldiers blood. For anyone looking to cut him a slack just think of what he said and DID during the campaign. He even attacked Barack as unpatriotic (how dare he)but then again, he is Lie-berman. This is the guy who asked Rumsfeld not to resign after the Abu Garaib scandal. This is the guy who sponsored a resolution in the senate to give Bush authorization to start a NEW war with Iran, more blood, destruction. This is the guy who called for the invasion of Syria. Can you pls. stop for 1 minute and thing: who will ultimately benefits from all these wars that zionist lie-berman wants in the middle east? Does anyone remember any hearing in the past 2 years for his committee regarding any Bush scandals, any. Why on earth now he is so determined to keep it?? So he can go after Obama.
November 10, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
GAAAAAH!
TPM is now the JOE LIEBERMAN SPECIAL
I DON'T CARE ABOUT JOE LIEBERMAN
TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE FOR A CHANGE!
November 11, 2008 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm...no one's forcing you to listen. And you're the one doing all the shouting.
November 11, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink