I just watched Evan Bayh try to explain to Rachel Maddow why Lieberman needs to keep his chairmanship. Bayh explained that they have no choice because Lieberman is threatening to leave the Senate if he doesn't get his way --- and the Connecticut Governor will then name a Republican who will never vote with them. And if he stays and doesn't get what he wants, he will be "embittered" and then vote against them on close votes out of spite. So in order to do what's necessary for the country they need to give him what he wants.

Let's see:

a) Lieberman quits, GOP Gov. of CT appts. GOP Sen.;

b) Lieberman stays, doesn't get what he wants, votes with GOP;

c) Lieberman gets what he wants, votes with GOP anyway (except for those issues where he shows his "progressive" self).

Yes, this is a sound political strategy on the part of Bayh and friends. And did I mention how responsive this strategy is to the voters who elected the Democrats?

(and forgive me for being too lazy to go back and find out):

What about a nongovernmental truth commission if necessary?

I think this is an excellent idea, sans the "truth commission" terminology. As someone else noted (saburai, I think), that name is uncomfortably Orwellian. Still, since genuine investigations (never mind prosecutions) are highly unlikely--strike that, guaranteed not to happen--why not take these things public in a way Accountability Now has done with mal-performing Democrats? Maybe Glenn, Jane Hamsher, et. al., are considering this. What's to lose?

Or better yet, just put hit contracts out on all of them.

I've had the same thought (in my darker moments which occur, oddly, 24 hours a day).

Obama's not a pussy

I wish I were as sanguine as you regarding Obama's feline-ness.

you (poor) bastard. Do what I do with my neighbors: beat them physically into submission (a fantasy I have in my darker moments which occurs, oddly, ... well, you know the rest).

I saw it Daily Kos and thought you'd appreciate it, particularly this part (it's Friedman's 2009 "resignation" column):

But to have been so completely and fundamentally wrong about so huge a disaster as what we have done to Iraq — and ourselves — is outrageous enough to prove that people like me have no business posing as wise men, and, more importantly, that The New York Times has no business continuing to provide me with a national platform.

http://tinyurl.com/56d5qs

I just read your post at your blog (it was succinct, and--let me be redundant--to the point). I hope you don't mind my posting the idiocy from Friedman once again:

The Arab world "needed to see American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying, 'Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?' You don’t think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This."

It bears repeating: this guy's a walking asshole (and in my darker moments ... maotsetung, where are you?).

I can't speak to the charge that Cocktailhag has repeatedly misrepresented your posts, but Why haven't the democrats brought impeachment proceedings against the gross, rampant. lawlessness of the Bush administration?

You know why. What do you think is being discussed here (and not just today)?

I believe that Bush acted the way he did to protect us.

I'm sorry you believe this. Remember Glenn's repeated references to the Leader? Remember that "German problem" regarding Der Fuhrer? I don't understand this psychology, I really don't. This "protect us" stuff is simply the language tyrants use to either gain, or add to their, power. You know this. You do.

I know you didn't address this to me (rather, Kitt), but:

3) Does it make him more powerful? ...How?

Think of the nature of the office (and Bush has been there for eight years)--the ego that underpins the very idea of "power" is, as Kissinger once said, a veritable aphrodisiac. Then think of what comes after one leaves office--speaking engagements, memoirs, etc. Let me stress--the ego.

so you're to blame. Well, I forgive you. And this: [I] decided I'm too lazy for it.

I think you must be my long-lost brother (and coming from a family of seven sisters that's no small thing).

The egotist wants to stand in front of everyone and receive their praise. The stuff we're talking about was to occur in the dark.

Allow me to disagree with your disagreement. The nature of power, to my way of thinking, doesn't require that it be made public. A lot of the stuff (to put it politely) that Kissinger and others did, by way of exercising it, wasn't meant to be public. For example, the Watergate break-in was never intended to see the light of day, had things worked out the way Nixon hoped. Let's assume no one ever knew about it; still, Nixon would have had the pleasure of basking in that expression of power. That is ego.

I would only add, wha?

But a political witch hunt for bureaucrats would send Obama home after four years.

This has the stink of Nazi Germany all over it. Good Lord, can't you see that?

NotOrbitBoy: For example, the Watergate break-in was never intended to see the light of day..." - Timothy3. Try again Timothy

I'm not trying anything. I'd hoped to engage you in a conversation about the nature of power, and what George W. Bush has sought in his horrific quest for it. I see that I failed.

I have been seething over the Bush administration's abuses since Cheney absconded with the notes of his energy policy meetings with Ken Lay and the boys. I believe many in the administration deserve punishment worse than jail time. I believe the current administration has hastened our decline into a third-world nation, squandering our blood, treasure, moral authority and good will on earth. However ....

I knew that part was coming.