|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
Lieberman to replace Rumpsmell
 Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:17 pm
|
 |
|
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Kerry_asks_Bush_to_replace_Rumsfeld_1205.html
Kerry asks Bush to replace Rumsfeld
RAW STORY
WASHINGTON: Senator John Kerry (D - Mass.) made the following statement, issued to RAW STORY, following Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s speech this morning on Iraq. Rumors are circulating that Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) could be tapped to replace Rumsfeld.
“Secretary Rumsfeld today sent dangerous mixed signals about Iraq. Does the Defense Secretary really just throw up his hands and accept that on-going terrorist attacks are inevitable in Iraq for the foreseeable future? Is he now admitting that the Bush Administration's mistakes have made Iraq what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists?
“The President owes it to our troops serving in Iraq to remove Secretary Rumsfeld and replace him at the Pentagon with a Defense Secretary who understands the situation on the ground in Iraq and who will advance, not undermine, American values around the world.
“Brave American troops are serving heroically under very difficult circumstances. Time and again, they have been put in greater danger by the mistakes of this Secretary of Defense who refuses to tell the truth about what is happening in Iraq and pushes aside anyone who dares speak truth to power. The mistakes are stacked one upon another. The Pentagon is reported to be paying Iraqi newspapers to carry ghostwritten news stories, undermining American credibility. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to publicly correct Secretary Rumsfeld because he didn't think American troops had an obligation to stop torture.
“We need a fresh start at the Pentagon for the good of American troops, so brave Americans stop paying the terrible price of this Defense Secretary's mistakes.”
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:46 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Rumors are circulating that Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) could be tapped to replace Rumsfeld.
Good grief almighty!!!!!
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
Et in Arcadia ego
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 2166
Location: The Void |
|
Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:42 pm
|
|
|
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/bush-d01.shtml
Bush, Democrats back protracted war in Iraq
excerpt:
The great advantage that the administration still enjoys is the support for the war from its ostensible opposition—the Democratic Party. The basic unity of the Democrats and Republicans in support of the US occupation reflects the broad pro-war consensus within the financial oligarchy, whose essential interests are defended by both parties.
Those in the political establishment and the top ranks of the US financial and corporate world understood from the outset that the purpose of the war was not to counter a terrorist threat, much less promote “democracy,” but rather to utilize overwhelming American military power to impose US hegemony over a region that contains much of the world’s oil resources. The predominant sections of this ruling elite still see the vast profits and strategic advantages over America’s economic rivals that such control would yield as worth the price being paid in blood—both American and Iraqi—as well as the $6 billion in monthly war spending.
This is what underlies the bipartisan alliance between the Democrats and Bush in support of continuing what is, in the most profound sense, a criminal war. It also accounts for the indifference of both parties to the antiwar sentiments of the majority of the American people.
This alliance found its most noxious expression in the column written by Lieberman for the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages, the most consistent voice of the Republican right. Lieberman claimed that “real progress” is being made in Iraq as a result of the US occupation and that the US neo-colonial operation is somehow giving the Iraqi people a “modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood.”
He repeated the ridiculous refrain that the struggle in Iraq “is a war between... 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists.”
_________________
"If the President has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution." |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:31 am
|
|
|
Connecticut begins to boil with chatter of Lieberman challenge
quote:
Well, it seems like it is finally starting to happen - Connecticut seems to now be moving into a boil over Sen. Joe Lieberman's (D) continued efforts to be a mouthpiece for the Bush administration's Iraq War policy.
First, the Journal Inquirer reports that Manchester's Democratic Town Committee is planning to hold a special meeting to "decide whether to send Lieberman's office a formal letter stating its displeasure and opposition to the senator's stance." In other words, a local Democratic committee is considering formally rebuking the Senator - a telltale sign that such anger is likely building throughout the state. "[Lieberman's behavior] is discouraging as a Democrat," said one at an earlier meeting. "If you want to be a Republican, then switch over your affiliation and run as a Republican."
Also today, the New York Times reports that "Former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. on Monday criticized Senator Joseph I. Lieberman's continued support of the war in Iraq and said that if no candidate challenged the senator on the issue in the 2006 election, he would consider running." Weicker, an independent, said, "When you've become the president's best friend on the war in Iraq, you should not be in office, especially if you're in the opposing party. I'm going to do everything I can to see that Joe Lieberman does not get a free pass."
On top of all this was last week's announcement by Moveon.org that it would consider supporting a challenge to Lieberman. In other words, there may be a perfect storm developing against Lieberman. And the more he continues to shill for the Republicans, the more that storm is going to intensify.
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 am
|
|
|
Clinton gets anti-war challenger
quote:
In a move that is certain to harden the battle lines among Democrats surrounding the Iraq war, a veteran union organizer will announce Tuesday that he is campaigning to unseat Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York.
The longshot candidate, Jonathan Tasini, has received the backing of anti-war mother Cindy Sheehan, who made national headlines this summer for her protest outside President Bush's Crawford, TX ranch.
Tasini's position on the war is clear: He supports immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:33 pm
|
|
|
Um... since Stamford is Lieberman's home turf and his mother still lives here... I thought that you might want to read what's being written about Lieberman here.
Dems tout Weicker as Lieberman foe
By Neil Vigdor
Staff Writer
Published December 7 2005
Several prominent local Democrats are warming to the idea of former Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker challenging incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., as an anti-war candidate in next year's Senate race.
The group of mostly liberal Democrats say Weicker, who publicly denounced Lieberman's support of the Iraq war on Monday and raised the prospect of running against the centrist, would better represent their views in the Senate.
"I'd vote for him over Joe Lieberman any day," former Greenwich Democratic Town Committee Chairman Betty Bonsal said. "Joe Lieberman -- he's too conservative for me."
A Lieberman spokesman did not return telephone messages seeking comment yesterday about the incumbent's eroding support among some Democrats.
Bonsal's comments continue an onslaught of criticism against Lieber-man that began earlier this year when President Bush planted a kiss on the junior senator's cheek following the State of the Union Address in February.
Lieberman's critics, who have launched Web sites such as DumpJoe.com and TimeToGoJoe.com, say the public display of affection confirmed the junior senator's close ties to Bush and his flawed policies.
"I think an awful lot of Democrats would be absolutely delighted to see somebody come up and challenge Lieberman," said Mary Sullivan, a former Democratic National Committee member from Riverside. "If it were a race between Lieberman and Weicker, put it that way, I would support Weicker."
That race would be a rematch of the 1988 Senate contest in which the Stamford native Lieberman unseated then-Republican incumbent and former Greenwich first selectman Weicker.
A political maverick who severed his GOP ties and founded the independent A Connecticut Party in 1990, Weicker said yesterday that he has received encouragement from supporters throughout the state following his public criticism of Lieberman at a Hartford Rotary club luncheon.
"I think really what it is, a lot of people have held their breath for so long and are relieved to get it off their chest," Weicker said of public disenchantment of Lieberman's continuing support of the war during a telephone interview from his Essex home.
Weicker, 74, who instead supports the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq in six months to a year, said he is leaving the door open to challenging Lieberman as an independent next year.
"Make no mistake about it, I place as much responsibility for this war at the feet of the Democrats as the Republicans," said Weicker, who described the situation in Iraq as dire. "I don't see how it could get worse."
While Weicker said he would prefer someone else be the one to challenge Lieberman, he warned that he would be forced to take action if a viable candidate does not emerge.
"I don't care who does it, but if that doesn't happen then obviously I'll have to sit down and give thought to the matter," Weic-ker said.
Liberal Democrats were not the only faction of the party to take notice of Weicker's comments.
"I can only hope that Joe will listen to his constituents and his friends and respond to people's outrage over this," said Charles Lee, a Greenwich DTC member who has hosted political fundraisers at his home for Lieberman.
Despite his own misgivings over the Iraq war, Lee said Lieberman remains an effective leader.
"Joe is an invaluable incumbent senator," Lee said. "He is a marvelous political figure and has been so important in so many respects."
Former Greenwich First Selectman Richard Bergstresser also reiterated his support for Lieberman but said a challenge might force the incumbent to reconsider his decisions.
"I think maybe if challenged, he may modify some of those positions he has taken or explain them," said Bergstres-ser, who had reservations about calling for the incumbent's ouster. "You have to be careful what you wish for because you may get someone who's even less supportive."
However, former General Assembly candidate Kim Hynes called Lieberman's stance on the war "misguided" and said disapproval of that position has been growing within the party.
"I've heard a tremendous amount of grumbling," said Hynes, a North Stamford resident and ardent supporter of anti-war presidential candidate Howard Dean in the 2004 election. "I know there is a 'draft Weicker' movement percolating."
Dean's own brother, Fairfield resident Jim Dean, said he was particularly troubled by rumors that Lieberman might be appointed to a Cabinet position in the Bush administration, and that the incumbent deserved to be challenged.
"I don't want to vote for a Democratic senator only to have him take a cabinet position in a Republican administration, particularly in one that lacks the integrity as this one does," said Dean, who inherited the leadership reins of the grassroots liberal group Democracy for America from his brother when he was appointed DNC chairman.
While some local Democrats were supportive of Weicker's potential challenge of Lieberman, the consensus among them was that the candidate would be someone else.
"Let's see if we can get Paul Newman to run," Bonsal said.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-gt-weicker1dec07,0,3936880.story |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:44 pm
|
|
|
I wonder if Liver-Man will appoint a replacement for him if he takes the job, and I wonder whether it will be a Pro-War Nut?
Dan, what is the feeling in CT on Lieberman? Nobody I know likes him too much.
Another Zell Miller?
Traitor and Turncoat, he should just become a Repuklican and be done with it.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:39 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Swamp Gas
Dan, what is the feeling in CT on Lieberman? Nobody I know likes him too much.
Another Zell Miller?
Traitor and Turncoat, he should just become a Repuklican and be done with it.
Not too many people like Lieberman here Swamp. He was OK as a senator before he ran for VP but his popularity has really gone down hill since then.
 Oh this can't be good. LIE-berman just had breakfast with Rumpsmell yesterday morning.
Lieberman Meets With Rumsfeld Amid Retirement Speculation
Associated Press
Published December 8 2005, 6:15 PM EST
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld hosted Sen. Joe Lieberman for a breakfast meeting today amid speculation that the Connecticut Democrat could be in line to succeed him.
Lieberman, who has emerged as President Bush's staunchest Democratic defender on the Iraq war, has bucked his party and been a vocal advocate for Bush's Iraq policies.
He was tight-lipped about the 7:30 a.m. meeting with Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Lieberman aides provided few details about the breakfast, saying that their boss does not discuss private meetings.
"Secretary Rumsfeld invited Senator Lieberman to an early morning breakfast to discuss the nation's policies in Iraq," said Lieberman spokeswoman Casey Aden-Wansbury. "That's all there is to it."
The Pentagon told reporters that Rumsfeld, who routinely meets with members of Congress, wanted to hear Lieberman's impressions of his visit to Iraq over the Thanksgiving holiday. It was the senator's fourth trip to Iraq in 17 months.
But the timing of the Rumsfeld meeting raised some eyebrows in political circles. News reports speculated Thursday that Rumsfeld may retire early next year and Lieberman is among prospective replacements.
Rumsfeld, who met with other members of Congress, mostly Republicans, later in the day on Capitol Hill, brushed off the rumors of his departure from the Pentagon, telling reporters, "I have no plans to retire."
A Lieberman aide, meanwhile, insisted the senator is focused on his 2006 re-election.
"The United States Senate is where Senator Lieberman wants to be, which is why he is actively campaigning for re-election to his fourth term representing Connecticut next year," Aden-Wansbury said.
The White House has been on the offensive in recent weeks, seeking to rebuild flagging public support for the Iraq war. As a staunch defender of Bush's handling of the war, Lieberman has been singled out for praise in two recent Bush speeches on Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney has also offered kind words.
Lieberman's support for the war has touched a nerve with former Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker, who said recently he would consider running against the incumbent senator as an anti-war candidate if no other major-party challenger steps forward.
Some anti-war liberals in Connecticut have also expressed anger at Lieberman's support for Bush.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-08173919.apds.m0068.bc-ct--liebdec08,0,2521330.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:01 pm
|
|
|
I need a puking gif for this one:
Bush kissed LIE-berman back in February after Bush's State of the Union speech.
quote:
As Bush stepped from the rostrum after his speech, he shook lawmakers’ hands, then suddenly grabbed Lieberman’s head in both hands — Michael Corleone-style — and planted one on his cheek.
Lieberman’s staff responded to the presidential public display of affection with tongue in cheek.
"We think it was some kind of Yale thing, and believe the senator would have returned the kiss if Sikorsky had gotten the presidential helicopter contract," said spokeswoman Casey Aden-Wansbury, referring to the Pentagon’s choice last week of Lockheed Martin over the Stratford-based Sikorsky.
White House spokesman Ken Lisaius welcomed a different inference.
"I believe it was a sign of appreciation from the president. Senator Lieberman has been understanding of the importance of the war on terror, and perhaps in addition to that it means that people should be optimistic that there’s a sense of working together on matters important to the American people," Lisaius said.
http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13889164&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=6
If that didn't make you sick... Maybe this will... 
 |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:10 am
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dan Rockwell
I need a puking gif for this one:
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
increase 1776
Joined: 07 Oct 2000
Posts: 3097
Location: Bizzaro World |
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:33 pm
|
|
|
_________________
"The police are not here to create disorder.
The police are here to preserve disorder." Mayor Richard Daley |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:58 pm
|
|
|
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8238
December 14, 2005
Lieberman's 'War Cabinet'
Forget partisan loyalties: the neocons are loyal to one thing and one thing only
by Justin Raimondo
The other day, when Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) suggested that it's time for George W. Bush to form a "war cabinet," everybody knew what he had in mind. Rumors of Donald Rumsfeld's departure from the Department of Defense were (and are) rife, and it was clear Lieberman was proposing himself as a replacement. Aside from the brazenly self-promotional aspect of this gambit, however, there is the rhetorical conceit of pretending that we're in the position of Britain during the blitz. This is so typical of the neoconservative vocabulary of crisis-mongering that it has evolved into an ideological tic: their response to any criticism, any deviation from their totalist conception of the "war on terrorism," is an outraged cry: "Don't you know there's a war on?" Lieberman resorted to this tack most recently upon returning from his latest visit to Iraq, whereupon he announced:
"In matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."
As if "we" are responsible for this administration's lack of credibility.
Lieberman's op-ed piece for the War Street Journal was more royalist than the king when it comes to Iraq, making absolutely no concessions to reality: according to him,
"It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists, or al-Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million…."
Lieberman, like the rest of his fellow neocons, is living in a fantasy world. Of those 27 million Iraqis he keeps invoking, the overwhelming majority want us out. As to the nature of the insurgency, even the president recognizes that some, perhaps a good number, represent nationalist forces who simply resent the occupation: Lieberman, however, disdains them all as "terrorists," "revanchists," and "Islamic extremists." To blame the insurgents alone for the civil war is to blank out the reality of Shi'ite death squads striking in the south and central regions of Iraq, instituting a veritable reign of terror; it is to ignore Kurdish ultra-nationalists intent on driving Arabs off their land. Lieberman somehow fails to mention any of this.
A recent speech is more nuanced: sure, there were "errors," says Lieberman – and, yes, it was "a war of choice," but now it's a "war of necessity" and we all have to unite behind Our Dear Leader – don't you know there's a war on?
He even invokes the ghost of Arthur Vandenberg, the Republican former anti-interventionist who was – literally – seduced into supporting FDR's drive to war. The Democrats, according to Lieberman's logic, must be 21st-century Vandenbergs: Politics, as the turncoat Vandenberg put it, must "stop at the water's edge."
What this really means, and always has meant, is that all debate must end: it's okay, as Lieberman says, to discuss "tactics," but the fundamental premise that we must be in the business of "regime change" throughout the Middle East and the world must never be challenged. This is Lieberman's niche in the neocon division of labor: he exists to quash any and all signs of dissent that might crop up in the Democratic Party when it comes to foreign policy. He is, in effect, charged with policing the party for any signs of dreaded "isolationism."
Not that he represents any sizable constituency: among all the Democrats competing in the 2000 presidential primary, he had the least support – and his speeches, invariably delivered in that sleepy, somewhat loopy monotone of his, were seemingly designed to bore the opposition to tears and leave them desperate to withdraw from the entire process lest they have to listen to another one of his soporific perorations.
Apart from the rarefied reaches of the Democratic Leadership Council and the laughably pretentious blog of neocon-turned-Democrat Marshall "The Moose" Wittmann, Lieberman's position commands zero support in the Democratic Party nationally. What the neocons are hoping, however, is that he can hold the fort long enough to delay if not entirely stop a real debate from breaking out over this country's foreign policy – giving the War Party time to escalate the war and strike out beyond Iraq's borders.
The New York Daily News is reporting that Rummy is history as soon as the Iraqi elections put a government in place, and while there has been no decision about his replacement as yet, word is out that Lieberman is really in the running. We are now being told that Lieberman was offered the post of UN representative, thought about it for a week or so, and finally said no: we got John Bolton instead. It had to be some kind of neocon, after all, since the UN figures prominently in the War Party's future plans (see my recent column on Syria). In any case, Lieberman is once again doing a tango with the Bush administration, and this led one "Senate Democratic source" cited by the Daily News to aver, "Lieberman seems to be coordinating his statements on the war with the White House."
Whether Lieberman is calling up the White House and strategizing with Karl Rove is a matter of pure conjecture, but we know for a fact that the Connecticut Democrat is the co-chairman of the Committee on the Present Danger. This is a group of prominent (and not so prominent) neocons and their hangers-on, the same ones who, quoting Churchill, pointed to Iraq as some kind of mortal threat in the run-up to war. Ever since 9/11, these folks have been invoking the ominous onset of what Present Dangerite R. James Woolsey calls "World War IV." To the neocons, it is always 1938, and Hitler – or, rather, his latest incarnation – is forever threatening to crush us beneath his iron-heeled boot, if only we are foolish enough to kneel and let him place it on our collective neck.
Yet Hitler commanded a modern army of millions, presided over a continental economy, and conquered nearly the whole of Europe as well as portions of Africa and the Middle East, occupying much of the Eurasian landmass. His allies dominated East Asia, the Balkans, and the Iberian peninsula. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is an underground conspiracy that cannot encompass more than a few thousand active members, at most. Osama bin Laden is not a head of state, but the leader of a worldwide guerrilla insurgency: he has no allies among the Arab or Muslim governments, as he has explicitly pledged to overthrow them all. The kind of war we must fight against this sort of enemy is very different from what we faced in 1938, and yet the neocons, old soldiers all (albeit not of the uniformed type), are preparing to fight the last war.
The War Party brays on about "victory" and how nothing less than that must be our goal – but their strategy is a prescription for defeat. They fail to recognize either the nature of the enemy or the real cause of the war, and their hubris allows them to entertain the idea that we can somehow – by sheer force of arms – transform an entire region of the world that has never known democracy or recognized the concept of human rights. That's how powerful we supposedly are.
Horse hockey. It can't be done, and it won't be done: we'll be lucky to get out of there with a minimum of 5,000 casualties if we begin pulling out right this minute. If we don't, we'll lose. It's as simple as that. Howard Dean is being excoriated for saying as much, and he's now backtracking, but he was right the first time: our troops are sitting ducks waiting to get knocked off in the crossfire of a developing civil war. I said that and wrote that years ago, as did other opponents of this war. We were ignored. The war went forward. But the argument didn't end there: it was only just beginning. It didn't matter that the "mainstream" media paid no attention to our arguments, as correct as we were. In the end, events – not the major networks, not Meet the Press, not the Washington punditocracy – decided, and opponents of this war were proved right. (At what cost? It makes me ill to think about it).
Like those old-line Marxists who have made a number of rather unconvincing arguments explaining why socialism failed so miserably – it "degenerated," it was never really tried, it was all Lenin's fault (or Stalin's, or Gorbachev's) – the neocons are busy inventing rationales for the failure of their world-conquering strategy of imposing "democracy" at gunpoint. Oh, they'll say that we – the antiwar movement – were responsible: they're already saying it. We "undermined" the war effort: we made the U.S. "cut and run." But this is akin to a madman standing on the edge of a precipice, insisting on his power of flight. When he plunges to his death several hundred feet below, are those innocent bystanders who failed to dissuade him really to blame?
The rumors of a Lieberman defection to a Republican administration are designed to create a firewall between the Democratic leadership, which is overwhelmingly pro-war and historically interventionist, and the antiwar grassroots. The prospect of losing Lieberman is supposed to put Democrats in a panic and push them back into their "national security Democrats" mode – as in that disgraceful national convention that nominated John Kerry – but the reasoning behind this scared-rabbit mentality is seriously skewed. Lieberman's position on Iraq is opposed by a clear majority of voters, and the political isolation of the stay-the-coursers grows by the day. The senator from Connecticut is a liability, not an asset: that was true during the 2000 presidential election campaign, and it is even truer today.
Lieberman is the Democrats' Cheney. They even sound alike: the plodding, colorless delivery, the fearless reiteration of long-debunked "facts," the oblivious tone that imbues their public pronouncements with a dreamlike, almost surrealistic quality. These two sound alike because they're both drinking the same neocon Kool-Aid.
Like Cheney is to the Republicans, Lieberman is a net loss for the Democrats. Let him go and join Bush's "war cabinet": he'll go down with the rest of them.
Lieberman, for the moment, is denying everything, and his aides claim that he's concentrating on his reelection to the Senate – as well he might. Lowell Weicker is already threatening to run against him as a third-party antiwar candidate, and the leader of the pro-war faction of the Democratic Party will be lucky if he gets to keep his Senate seat. Perhaps he realizes that – and views joining Bush's "war cabinet" as his only honorable out.
In any case, wars always rearrange the political landscape: liberals become conservatives and internationalists become "isolationists" (and vice versa), and people switch parties, break old allegiances, and craft new alliances. If Lieberman goes, it is just the beginning of a political seismic shift that is bound to shake up both parties. We may never have peace, but we will have clarity.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 5:59 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
