Letters to the Editor
-
"institutional comity"...
Wouldn't the Dems' *not* voting to confirm Lieberman simply be calling the Repubs' bluff on bipartisanship? Would the Dems really have anything to lose (at least, certainly in terms of a net loss), assuming they play it competently, by not confirming him?
-
Not enough for Joementum
Sounds like a dastardly genius of an evil idea, but one thing stands in the way: Joe's gargantuan ego. I think the only thing Bush could offer is for Cheney to step down and appoint Joementum to succeed him.
Joe wouldn't take the ambassorship to England, let alone the UN, unless he was sure his political career was really over and I just don't see it.
Better yet, appoint him ambassador to the Vatican. Yeah, that would work.
-
Let Lieberman go already
Why not? The guy has stabbed the Dems in back so many times already he may as well leave electoral politics altogether. We all win in the end if he goes.
Lieberman goes to the UN where he can no longer hold the Democratic Senate majority hostage. Lieberman's own ideas on foreign policy also become moot as he will be a direct mouthpiece of the Bush administration and hence have zero credibility at the UN.
The Senate splits 50-50 with Republicans controlling via Cheney. In the intervening two years either the Republican Senate prevents meaningful change from the Democratic House, in which case Iraq remains a partisan Republican albatross and the Democrats regain control with a much stronger majority, or a moderate Republican crosses the aisle and the Dems spin it as the GOP's credibility problem has splintered their own party and cost them the Senate, again with Dems walking away with a better majority in 2008.
The only thing holding the Dems back are pandering to the DINO Grand Poobah Lieberman in fear of losing critical votes on the Iraq War, minimum wage, health insurance, election reform, etc., and in the process watering down the bills in order for Joe in his infinite wisdom to pass them that they look weak on the very issues voters brought them in for.
I say screw Lieberman, let Bush take him. The voters are going to completely give the Dems the Senate in two years anyway.
-
The BushManoeuvres Are Not Surprising!
Frankly NO manoeuvre that GW Bush and his Gang of War Criminals may try to get themselves out of the trouble they should be in (but aren't) would surpise me.
It wouldn't surprise me either if Joe Lieberman were to collaborate with GW Bush and Gang (hasn't he been doing that all along, except on the issue of 'global warming')?.
What does really truly surprise me is the fact that US citizens have not caught on to the games that GW Bush and Gang have been playing with them (and with the world) ever since 2001 (when GW Bush first took power).
It did really truly surprise me when US citizens voted a proven War Criminal back into power in 2004. At that point they (as a group) became complicit in the War Crimes if they did not publicly register their protest against the war criminals ruling the USA.
It does continue to really truly surprise me that US citizens have not thrown the War Criminal out of power even today. They still remain complicit in those crimes - at least all of those who do not work to throw the war criminals OUT.
It does really truly surprise me also that GW Bush and Gang are NOT treated as pariahs by the international community. We are all complicit in those war crimes - all of us who do not raise our voices (at least) against GW Bush and Gang.
SO - WHY DON'T WE ALL (or at least a sufficient number of us), NOW AT LEAST GET TOGETHER TO:
A: THROW THE SCOUNDRELS OUT OF POWER; and
B: PUT THEM ON TRIAL AS WAR CRIMINALS AT LEAST NOW????
Now, with the Internet available more or less worldwide - to a very sizable number of citizens - I'm certain there should be practical means to bring into being an international movement "to throw GW Bush and Gang out" - AND "to try them for war crimes".
GSC
-
Israeli interests vs. US interests
I thought your headline was meant to frighten people into reading the article.
For one thing, you need to correct the Lieberman-I notation, it's Lieberman-CFLP "Connecticut for Lieberman Party". Lieberman isn't a member of the Independent Party.
Nor is Lieberman particularly interested in America where Israeli interests are concerned, accepting money from AIPAC and sitting on boards for least three Zionist organizations. He is the best choice to replace Bolton as a mouthpiece for Bush's incindiary, war-mongering, unconditionally pro-Israel neocon agenda. Sadly, the security of Americans, and the responsible role to play on the world stage have never been a priority with this administration. I'm doubting that the clear logic and competence of the Iraq Study Group report will make much of a dent.
-
"GS C" stands for "GS Chandy
I don't want to hide behind initials - I don't know how that happened in my earlier post.
-
Not quite the doomsday scenario
Even if Lieberman did make such a move, there's no way of knowing that it would cause the end of a Democratic Senate majority. For one thing, Jodi Rell may be a Republican, but she's hardly a neocon or a Roveite. She's signed legislation granting civil unions to homosexuals, she's supporting a class-action suit against No Child Left Behind, and has enacted a Democratic plan to revive the estate tax. Republicans who expect her to fall into party-line lockstep have been disappointed time and again; I think she might just give the country a surprise as to who she'd nominate.
Actually, I'm surprised Conason didn't see fit to research this, considering how much scrutiny he usually gives these issues. But then again, I'm not quite sure why we're blue-skying doomsday scenarios in the first place. Don't we have enough things that have already gone wrong without having to fret about ones that may never happen?
-
What Makes You Think the Republican's Want the Senate?
What exactly do the Republican's have to gain by controling the Senate? Bush already has the power to veto any legislation he doesn't like and it is very unlikely that the Democrats would be able to override any of his vetos. If the Republican's get control of the Senate and thumb their nose at the will of the people they are likely to loose everything in two years.
In the meantime, the Democrats will maintain control of the House and will be able to put a stop to any legislation they don't like. They will also have the ability to investigate endlessy and are far more likely to do so if they have no chance of getting any legislation to the President's desk. American's will likely be in the mood to hear every ugly piece of information that the Democrats can dig up as they wait impatiently for another two years when a whole lot of Republican Senate Seats come up for election.
The only thing control of the Senate will give the Republican's is the chance to seat another Conservative judge, not a given in such an evenly split Senate where Democrats are not so likely to play nice after having their power removed through gamemanship rather then the will of the people. If the Republican's do manage to swing the court to the hard right they will likely loose the intense interest of the religious right who will feel less of a need to support them, while lighting a fire under everyone else when a completely out of step Court starts handing down one frighening ruling after another.
While there is little upside to the Republicans in controling the Senate, remaining out of power offers more. They will be in much better shape in two years to blame the Democrats and argue for change if they remain out of power in Congress, where they will try to pin all of the problems they created on the Democrats. Don't forget, the Republicans rushed to give the Democrats the Senate, pressing nominees to conceed quickly when they could have easily and not unjustifiably contested several very close elections, so why does anyone think they are in any hurry to give it back?