Tuesday, August 1, 2006
The Last Plantation
If there's anybody who thinks there's no racism in our country, go see this video at Guerrilla News Network.
The folks they're talking about are Members (heh) of Congress and the Capitol Hill Police, not some backwoods bozo (button it!) with a Stars 'n Bars sticker on his old pickup. Disgusting.
By now, you've probably heard about the March 29th run in between Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and a Capitol Hill police officer. But you probably have not yet heard this side of the story. In true GNN fashion, we go beyond the superficial coverage of the mainstream press to uncover a different perspective on the story. GNN's Ian Inaba, director of the new documentary American Blackout talked to four police officers about allegations of racism on Capitol Hill and the now infamous incident.
The folks they're talking about are Members (heh) of Congress and the Capitol Hill Police, not some backwoods bozo (button it!) with a Stars 'n Bars sticker on his old pickup. Disgusting.
The bottom of the barrel
Raw Story
Bush and Rumsfeld have taken the best Army in the world and broken it from overuse and abuse and they have no intention of trying to mend it, like a rich kid with an expensive 4x4 who just keeps rammin' rocks with it but who's scared to ask daddy for money to fix it because daddy'll figure out what he's been up to and take it away.
If something like Grenada should happen, they'd have to send the cooks and bakers. I'll skip the jokes about how being forced to eat army chow would make anybody surrender and probably violates the Geneva Convention to boot.
Point is, the U.S. is in deep shit if anything should come up, and it just might, given Bush's big mouth.
As far as Congress stepping forward to exercise its oversight responsibilities, they haven't done so yet in any matter involving removing their lips from Bush's unit. There's no reason to believe they'll start now.
November. Our only hope.
Experts: Not a single Army Combat team left ready to deploy
A group of national security experts formed by Democratic leadership has reported to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) that, "there is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy," RAW STORY has learned.
"The bottom line," the group concludes in a letter to Democratic leadership, "is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve."
This degraded readiness condition stems from the heavy deployment of combat forces the Army has sustained these past four years. Predictably, this has resulted in accelerated wearout of large quantities of Army equipment, disruptions in training schedules, and strains on meeting recruitment and reenlistment goals. We called attention to this looming problem in an earlier report, "The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk," January 2006, but that report was met with indifference and denial by the administration. This problem can no longer be denied.
The administration's willingness to put our nation at such strategic risk is deeply disturbing. And its failure to adequately support the soldiers who are risking their lives for this nation is unacceptable. The readiness degradation that has already occurred could lead to a downward spiral that will take years to correct unless promptly addressed. Under these conditions, it is important for the Congress to step forward to exercise its oversight responsibilities for equipping and training the Armed Services.
Bush and Rumsfeld have taken the best Army in the world and broken it from overuse and abuse and they have no intention of trying to mend it, like a rich kid with an expensive 4x4 who just keeps rammin' rocks with it but who's scared to ask daddy for money to fix it because daddy'll figure out what he's been up to and take it away.
If something like Grenada should happen, they'd have to send the cooks and bakers. I'll skip the jokes about how being forced to eat army chow would make anybody surrender and probably violates the Geneva Convention to boot.
Point is, the U.S. is in deep shit if anything should come up, and it just might, given Bush's big mouth.
As far as Congress stepping forward to exercise its oversight responsibilities, they haven't done so yet in any matter involving removing their lips from Bush's unit. There's no reason to believe they'll start now.
November. Our only hope.
The Iraq War Powers Repeal Act of 2006
Raw Story
And Bush lied his ass off as to his true intentions to get the permission he got.
Naturally I'm in favor of this bill, but I doubt it will go anywhere. I sure would like to see it brought to the public's attention, though.
A piece of legislation sponsored by Democrats in the House of Representatives seeks to withdraw authorization for President George W. Bush to make war in Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.
The Iraq War Powers Repeal Act of 2006, H.R. 5875, was introduced on July 25 by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a Democrat of California. The bill employs the rationale that since President Bush declared "mission accomplished" in May 2003, the US has been engaged in an occupation, not a war, which Congress never authorized.
"It's become very clear that we're not in war," Woolsey explained last week. "We're occupying Iraq and the president never came to us and asked us for permission."
And Bush lied his ass off as to his true intentions to get the permission he got.
Naturally I'm in favor of this bill, but I doubt it will go anywhere. I sure would like to see it brought to the public's attention, though.
A thought ...
Before I leave for work (the Mrs. and I overslept this morning so I'm running late).
Are you uncomfortable in this heatwave? I know I am, having to work on hot cars all day, in and out of the shop. Here's something to think about as you go through your day, trying to stay somewhat cool.
In Iraq, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines deal with this every day, many doing their jobs wearing 75 - 100 pounds of gear. That's not counting getting shot at, blown up, and having to deal with the stench of death and sewage all the time.
Could you do it? In my book, the only definition of "support the troops" means bringing them home.
Are you uncomfortable in this heatwave? I know I am, having to work on hot cars all day, in and out of the shop. Here's something to think about as you go through your day, trying to stay somewhat cool.
In Iraq, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines deal with this every day, many doing their jobs wearing 75 - 100 pounds of gear. That's not counting getting shot at, blown up, and having to deal with the stench of death and sewage all the time.
Could you do it? In my book, the only definition of "support the troops" means bringing them home.
And if anybody cares how I spent the hottest day of the year.
Monday, July 31, 2006
"Worst ever security flaw found in Diebold voting machine"
Paul the Spud over at Shakey's Sis turned me on to this post at Brilliant at Breakfast. A definite 'must read'.
It looks like they can either be shipped with the desired results already installed or the desired results can be added at any convenient time if your precinct's outcome comes down from Rove or the RNC too late for the factory to do it.
And you thought Mrs. Bowers was kidding about the Diebold Vote Correcting Machine™, eh?
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA -- "This may be the worst security flaw we have seen in touch screen voting machines," says Open Voting Foundation president, Alan Dechert. Upon examining the inner workings of one of the most popular paperless touch screen voting machines used in public elections in the United States, it has been determined that with the flip of a single switch inside, the machine can behave in a completely different manner compared to the tested and certified version.
The most serious issue is the ability to choose between "EPROM" and "FLASH" boot configurations. Both of these memory sources are present. All of the switches in question (JP2, JP3, JP8, SW2 and SW4) are physically present on the board. It is clear that this system can ship with live boot profiles in two locations, and switching back and forth could change literally everything regarding how the machine works and counts votes. This could be done before or after the so-called "Logic And Accuracy Tests".
A third possible profile could be field-added in minutes and selected in the "external flash" memory location, the interface for which is present on the motherboard.
So what does this mean to the layman? Well, you know those little "flash drives" that you use to copy files from one PC to another? If you don't, they are mini-hard drives housed in a casing about the length and width of a tongue depressor cut in half. They plug into the USB port of your PC and become just another drive that you can look at in Windows Explorer. What this means is that by opening up the PC that houses the voting machine software and flipping a switch, you can set the voting machine to boot from the internally-configured drive to an external flash drive instead. So someone could very easily plug in a flash drive and reboot the PC after the polls close to manipulate the totals, then shut it down and walk away.
This is not "vulnerability to hacking." This is "open to rigging" -- and Diebold isn't even trying very hard to hide the fact that their machines can be rigged, and that they are DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY for this purpose. Diebold makes most of the ATMs in this country, and I don't know about you, but I have never once had to deal with an ATM error. So it isn't that Diebold doesn't know how to make a secure machine running secure software.
This machine was developed EXACTLY according to spec. Now who gave them the specs?
It looks like they can either be shipped with the desired results already installed or the desired results can be added at any convenient time if your precinct's outcome comes down from Rove or the RNC too late for the factory to do it.
And you thought Mrs. Bowers was kidding about the Diebold Vote Correcting Machine™, eh?
'American Lie'
Heavy G's Smartass Monday continues with the long-awaited sequel to 'American Pie' from The Satirical Political Report.
There's more.
I started singin'
"Hi-Hi, Miss American Lie"
Drove my Chevy to the levee
But the levee's not dry
And FEMA boys were drinkin' whiskey and rye
And singin', "this'll be the day the poor die"
"This'll be the day the poor die"
Now for six years we"ve been on our own
GOP graft grows like a rollin' stone
But that's not how it used to be
When the jester acted like a king or queen
In a way that totally pissed John Dean
And a police state, that's comin', for you and me
Oh, and while the jester's looking down
King Cheney stole his thorny crown
Civil liberties, were adjourned
No verdict was returned
And while Condi shut out Richard Clarke
The Neo-Cons war-gamed in the park
And Congress sat out in the dark
The day democracy died
There's more.
Laughable foreign policy
...
Haass, the former Bush aide who leads the Council on Foreign Relations, laughed at the president's public optimism. "An opportunity?" Haass said with an incredulous tone. "Lord, spare me. I don't laugh a lot. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. If this is an opportunity, what's Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?"
...
Real foreign policy experts say we're gonna get splattered from the blowback of our Middle East adventures.
Link thanks to Maru.
How to prevent Inconvenient Results
In her article on "Bush's Four Point Plan For The Middle East", Mrs. Betty Bowers (America's Best Christian) writes:
I hope this will keep us all in compliance with An Angry Old Broad's Rule No. 5. Assuming of course that nervous laughter brought on by a humorous approach to the awful truth is acceptable. I'll await a ruling.
As some of you with fetishes for picturesque, historical chestnuts may recall, Democracy Version 1776 included something known by nostalgia addicts as the "Constitution." More to the point, Democracy Version 1776 was also a rather quaint type of government wherein citizens underwent the tedious, charmless task of actually tallying the votes cast. Such laborious counting can, of course, lead to inconvenient results. This is precisely why America wisely dispensed with being subjected to the unpredictable vicissitudes of voters' actual preferences by making so many polling stations Democracy 2000 compliant after installing Diebold Vote Correcting Machines™.
You see, American Democracy Version 2000 is all about pushing placebo screens, rather than the anal, wholly superfluous preoccupation with memorializing those quixotic stabs at LCD pixels. If we had only thought to bundle up a few container ships with Diebold Vote Correcting Machines™ and sent them to Lebanon, the same software that allowed our handsome President to win Ohio, would have ensured that Hezbollah was trounced by a number of votes roughly equivalent to 400 times the population of Beirut. Instead, Islamic extremists are gaining power, making a trigger-happy Israel mail-order a few thousand more triggers. Oh, snap!
[...] In a stroke of inspiration, Condi has appropriated her method of brokering peace from Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie by regarding America's two biggest threats (Iran and North Korea) with a snarling, "I'm not talking to her! She knows what she did."
I hope this will keep us all in compliance with An Angry Old Broad's Rule No. 5. Assuming of course that nervous laughter brought on by a humorous approach to the awful truth is acceptable. I'll await a ruling.
Oh, the irony...
Ironic Times
You know, that one just might work.
Plenty more where those came from.
Condi: "It's Time for a New Middle East"
Demolition has already begun.
Bush Has New Plan to End Iraq Violence
First step: lose control of Congress.
You know, that one just might work.
New Florida Law: History Is Fact, Not Subject to Different Interpretations
Except for Evolution.
REMINDER
Three Supreme Court justices voted that the President can ignore the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
Plenty more where those came from.
The Chimp in a China shop
In a recent post, Fixer brought up the idea of "it's time for Nixon to go to China" as a metaphor for what might help in the Middle East. I ran across pretty much that same phrase in a post at HuffPo by Cenk Uygur entitled "How George Bush Can Rescue His Presidency". Since I figured there's about as much chance of that happening as there is that I'll need my ski parka and longjohns when I go to my final reward, I got kinda fascinated and read it. Actually, I figured the guy was smokin' some really good shit and I was hopin' maybe he'd say where he got it! He didn't. Drat.
Just as an aside, I didn't know who this Uygur guy was, but I've been reading quite a bit of his stuff lately and I like it, so I read his bio. He's been described as "Part Howard Stern, Part Howard Dean". Heh. Sounds OK to me.
Here he outlines the deal.
And it's hard work, too. The Chimp's told us so himself. Go read the rest.
Just as an aside, I didn't know who this Uygur guy was, but I've been reading quite a bit of his stuff lately and I like it, so I read his bio. He's been described as "Part Howard Stern, Part Howard Dean". Heh. Sounds OK to me.
Imagine what would happen if George Bush brokered a real peace deal in the Middle East. I know it seems absurd and I know there's no way he's going to do that while holding on to the ridiculous "bomb our way to democracy" and "first strikes rock" doctrines. But what if Nixon went to China?
What if Condoleezza Rice won the internal turf battles and convinced George Bush that he would have a real legacy if he converted all of his tough talk into leverage needed to actually strike a deal with the Iranians. A deal that would stabilize Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and, most importantly, Israel and Palestine.
Would he have to make concessions? Absolutely. Would he get everything he wants in the deal? No way. Would the neocons be furious and send Dick Cheney to yell at the president? Of course. But if he was willing to stomach all that, he could come out with a historic peace deal.
Here's the outline of the deal:
Here he outlines the deal.
You have to wonder why we've never tried to empower the moderates and alienate the extremists in the Middle East before. It would seem to be far better strategy than doing the opposite through shocking (and awing) bombing campaigns.
If we just spent half the money we would normally spend occupying Iraq for the next ten years on investments in Middle Eastern infrastructure, we would be the most popular country in the Arab world. Give everyone in the Middle East an internet connection and they'll be wearing jeans rather than a burqa in less time than you could say Paris Hilton.
Nothing I've stated is undoable. In fact, it can be argued that George W. Bush is uniquely situated to make this happen. Other US administrations might not be able to pull this off because our Middle Eastern negotiating partners might not believe the alternative to peace is so bad. But under Bush, they have to realize he's crazy enough to start a war so calamitous that it could bring down all their governments.
Do I think he's going to do it? Of course not! I don't think he has it in him. He is not that grand and he is not that wise. So, instead it will be a presidency that will be remembered for gross incompetence, enormous tactical errors and historic deceptions. But it's not like he didn't have a chance to turn all of that around, even this late in the game.
What separates George Bush from all other bad presidents is not his ability to get himself in a hole, but his fervent insistence on digging in further. It's not easy to be the worst president of all time. You really have to work at it.
And it's hard work, too. The Chimp's told us so himself. Go read the rest.
On Mel Gibson
Just a question. Is it the Jews' fault you made so much money or are ya gonna let 'em slide on that count, you miserable, Holocaust-denying prick?
I hope they run you out of Hollywood and you go broke, having to go back to Aus in disgrace and live in the Outback, forgotten until they find your bleached bones in a pile of Dingo shit.
I'm done now.
I hope they run you out of Hollywood and you go broke, having to go back to Aus in disgrace and live in the Outback, forgotten until they find your bleached bones in a pile of Dingo shit.
I'm done now.
Testosterone
Or, why we should have more women running things:
I should say more progressive women, not enablers like Condi (she's not black) and Karen 'Sasquatch' Hughes.
...
There are many ways to tell the story of the Iraq War, but no question that one of them begins with a group of Republican men who under a compulsion to prove they were meaner and tougher than they'd been back in the days when they were a) in high school and no one chose them for the team, and/or b) part of the first Bush Administration. They bought into their own hormone-drenched slogans about fast strikes, shock-and-awe and surgical bombing. Now, three years later, having wrought a disaster, they continue to resort to the bromides of testosterone, accusing the war's critics of being wussy for even discussing a pull-out. (Even the war's moderate critics make the mistake of believing that everything would have worked just fine in Iraq had we sent in more troops. But there's no evidence whatsoever that this would have improved anything, never mind that we barely had the troops to send.)
...
I should say more progressive women, not enablers like Condi (she's not black) and Karen 'Sasquatch' Hughes.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
I know ...
I know I annoy a lot of people on our side with my criticism of Israel. Let me put this out right now. I firmly believe in Israel's right to exist and its inhabitants right to live in peace, free from harassment. I believe Israel's sovereignty should be defended as we would another ally. What I will not condone is their belief that any action on their part to 'protect themselves' is justified.
Israel has a responsibility, as the most powerful nation in the region, to the people who live under their control. Nothing, I repeat, nothing Israel has done over the last forty years has been the least bit beneficial to the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Lebanese. Israel's safety, tenuous as it is, has been bought at the expense of hundreds of thousands of people who share the land with them. Lives lived without hope, under the boot of the Israeli Defense Forces.
I do not condone the use of terror tactics against civilian poplulations and terror comes in many forms. There is the obvious, practiced by Hezbollah and Hamas, civilians and innocents the primary targets. But there is also the 'soft terror', when the economy and infrastructure of an area is destroyed and the population reduced to living in destitution for generations. This seemingly endless repetition of violent cycles is regressive at worst and stagnating at best.
Israel has to move on, as well as her neighbors. Think about it, this cycle we've been living for forty years. When will it stop? When an all out war decimates the populations of all concerned? Will we go on like this for another forty years? Another eighty? Will it end with Israel setting off a nuke? It's time someone takes a stand and says enough.
I refuse to believe this region of the world will be a meat grinder for the indeterminate future. It is time for the U.S., as Israel's most generous benefactor, to start issuing some ultimatums, not allowing them to rampage over sovereign, democratic nations and tie it to the coveted foreign aid Israel receives that keeps it a sovereign state. It is also time for us to use serious carrot and stick diplomacy with the terror groups as well as their sponsors.
We can have a dialogue with Syria and, with some prodding and a little malleability, Iran. We have been talking peace through the barrel of a gun for more than forty years, maybe it's time to try something different. Bush 41 had a dialogue with Syria before Gulf 1, SECSTATE Baker making many trips back and forth between Damascus and Washington and finally getting the Syrians to join the coalition against Saddam; it can be done.
Opposing Israel in this case is not anti-Semetic, not anti-Jewish. It is about the moral imperative. It is about doing the right thing, for Israel, for the region, and for the interests of the United States in the long run. A commitment to dialogue and economic betterment for the region, not to violence, will settle this and we must condemn the violence where we see it, from whatever side it comes.
It is time for Nixon to go to China.
Update:
Related Reading:
Commander Huber
Glenn Greenwald
Israel has a responsibility, as the most powerful nation in the region, to the people who live under their control. Nothing, I repeat, nothing Israel has done over the last forty years has been the least bit beneficial to the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Lebanese. Israel's safety, tenuous as it is, has been bought at the expense of hundreds of thousands of people who share the land with them. Lives lived without hope, under the boot of the Israeli Defense Forces.
I do not condone the use of terror tactics against civilian poplulations and terror comes in many forms. There is the obvious, practiced by Hezbollah and Hamas, civilians and innocents the primary targets. But there is also the 'soft terror', when the economy and infrastructure of an area is destroyed and the population reduced to living in destitution for generations. This seemingly endless repetition of violent cycles is regressive at worst and stagnating at best.
Israel has to move on, as well as her neighbors. Think about it, this cycle we've been living for forty years. When will it stop? When an all out war decimates the populations of all concerned? Will we go on like this for another forty years? Another eighty? Will it end with Israel setting off a nuke? It's time someone takes a stand and says enough.
I refuse to believe this region of the world will be a meat grinder for the indeterminate future. It is time for the U.S., as Israel's most generous benefactor, to start issuing some ultimatums, not allowing them to rampage over sovereign, democratic nations and tie it to the coveted foreign aid Israel receives that keeps it a sovereign state. It is also time for us to use serious carrot and stick diplomacy with the terror groups as well as their sponsors.
We can have a dialogue with Syria and, with some prodding and a little malleability, Iran. We have been talking peace through the barrel of a gun for more than forty years, maybe it's time to try something different. Bush 41 had a dialogue with Syria before Gulf 1, SECSTATE Baker making many trips back and forth between Damascus and Washington and finally getting the Syrians to join the coalition against Saddam; it can be done.
Opposing Israel in this case is not anti-Semetic, not anti-Jewish. It is about the moral imperative. It is about doing the right thing, for Israel, for the region, and for the interests of the United States in the long run. A commitment to dialogue and economic betterment for the region, not to violence, will settle this and we must condemn the violence where we see it, from whatever side it comes.
It is time for Nixon to go to China.
Update:
Related Reading:
Commander Huber
Glenn Greenwald
Quote of the Day
Billmon:
Which means that it's all up to his nibs, the man who thinks he's Winston Churchill (if Shrub really had been Winston Churchill, the Nazi Party would be holding its rallies in Hyde Park right now.)
A Senate Race in Connecticut
Editorial in today's New York Times, presented in toto:
[Earlier this year, Senator Joseph Lieberman's seat seemed so secure that - legend has it - some people at the Republican nominating convention in Connecticut started making bleating noises when the party picked a presumed sacrificial lamb to run against the three-term senator, who has been a fixture in Connecticut politics for more than 35 years.
But Mr. Lieberman is now in a tough Democratic primary against a little-known challenger, Ned Lamont. The race has taken on a national character. Mr. Lieberman's friends see it as an attempt by hysterical antiwar bloggers to oust a giant of the Senate for the crime of bipartisanship. Lamont backers - most of whom seem more passionate about being Lieberman opponents - say that as one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war, Mr. Lieberman has betrayed his party by cozying up to President Bush.
This primary would never have happened absent Iraq. It's true that Mr. Lieberman has fallen in love with his image as the nation's moral compass. But if pomposity were a disqualification, the Senate would never be able to call a quorum. He has voted with his party in opposing the destructive Bush tax cuts, and despite some unappealing rhetoric in the Terri Schiavo case, he has strongly supported a woman's right to choose. He has been one of the Senate's most creative thinkers about the environment and energy conservation.
But this race is not about résumés. The United States is at a critical point in its history, and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial role to play. The voters in Connecticut will have to judge whether it is the right one.
As Mr. Lieberman sees it, this is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party - his moderate fair-mindedness against a partisan radicalism that alienates most Americans. "What kind of Democratic Party are we going to have?" he asked in an interview with New York magazine. "You've got to agree 100 percent, or you're not a good Democrat?"
That's far from the issue. Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration's most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.
Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation's longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were "more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq" than on supporting the war's progress.
At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman's ability to command Republicans' attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president's defender.
On the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman has left it to Republicans like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to investigate the administration's actions. In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then added: "I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized." To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu Ghraib.
Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration's policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales's sneering reference to the "quaint" provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq's weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.
If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.
Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent's grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman's legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.]
It's about time, Gray Lady.
[Earlier this year, Senator Joseph Lieberman's seat seemed so secure that - legend has it - some people at the Republican nominating convention in Connecticut started making bleating noises when the party picked a presumed sacrificial lamb to run against the three-term senator, who has been a fixture in Connecticut politics for more than 35 years.
But Mr. Lieberman is now in a tough Democratic primary against a little-known challenger, Ned Lamont. The race has taken on a national character. Mr. Lieberman's friends see it as an attempt by hysterical antiwar bloggers to oust a giant of the Senate for the crime of bipartisanship. Lamont backers - most of whom seem more passionate about being Lieberman opponents - say that as one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war, Mr. Lieberman has betrayed his party by cozying up to President Bush.
This primary would never have happened absent Iraq. It's true that Mr. Lieberman has fallen in love with his image as the nation's moral compass. But if pomposity were a disqualification, the Senate would never be able to call a quorum. He has voted with his party in opposing the destructive Bush tax cuts, and despite some unappealing rhetoric in the Terri Schiavo case, he has strongly supported a woman's right to choose. He has been one of the Senate's most creative thinkers about the environment and energy conservation.
But this race is not about résumés. The United States is at a critical point in its history, and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial role to play. The voters in Connecticut will have to judge whether it is the right one.
As Mr. Lieberman sees it, this is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party - his moderate fair-mindedness against a partisan radicalism that alienates most Americans. "What kind of Democratic Party are we going to have?" he asked in an interview with New York magazine. "You've got to agree 100 percent, or you're not a good Democrat?"
That's far from the issue. Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration's most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.
Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation's longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were "more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq" than on supporting the war's progress.
At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman's ability to command Republicans' attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president's defender.
On the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman has left it to Republicans like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to investigate the administration's actions. In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then added: "I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized." To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu Ghraib.
Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration's policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales's sneering reference to the "quaint" provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq's weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.
If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.
Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent's grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman's legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.]
It's about time, Gray Lady.
More brain power
A wingnut (no link) decided to call me on this post, saying Israel is justified in going after Hezbollah regardless of civilian casualties:
What all of these righties fail to understand is perception. Oh, they get it all right when it comes to spinning American perception of their failures, but they never take into account others' perceptions around the world. Every policy is, when you boil it down, about the next election in this country.
There's a way to go after Hezbollah without inflaming your neighbors, you know, the people who want to kill you as it is but haven't been given a good enough excuse. Hezbollah was waiting for Israel to pull this, as I said in the aforementioned post. They've had six years to fortify but the wingnuts, like the Israelis, can't seem to wrap their minds around it. Well lookee here, I just grabbed this via Michael Stickings:
The hubris and arrogance of the Bush government is matched by the Israelis. This is not an operation over the disappearance over two Israeli soldiers. This is about Iran and Syria. This is the beginning of a proxy war* by the Bush administration to take on Iran because U.S. public sentiment for opening up a new front in the 'War on Terra' is nonexistent. The missing soldiers were an excuse, pure and simple.
And Hezbollah, thanks to the support of Iran and Syria, was ready for it. Do you think it's some sort of accident we are seeing them using longer range rockets as the Israelis drive them farther north? They let the Israelis believe they weren't so well equipped until they actually had to play their hand. We've had twenty days of this and Hezbollah is continuing to fire into Israel.
The Israelis were of the same mind we were when invading Iraq, the cakewalk mentality of being on top for too long. Our quagmire continues and Israel's newest is just beginning. I quote Sheikh Qassem once more:
The Israelis might well defeat Hezbollah eventually, but the damage they are doing to themselves in the long run will be far worse than anything they can do to the Lebanese. The Oil Kings' grip on the Arab Street, and their own power, will not last forever. Allegiances will change as surely as the sands shift and it might not do for Israel to continue a policy of remaining an island in the midst of shark-infested waters.
Update:
More answers if we had the brains to implement them.
Update:
And for the bloggers on our side who believe that by critcizing Israel we're showing disregard for the lives of Israeli citizens, let's remember one thing. The IDF has killed far more innocent Palestinians and Lebanese than Hamas and Hezbollah have killed Israelis, now and cumulatively. After 40 years, when will they get it that Israel's heavy handed tactics don't work? If they did, this conflict would have been over by now. Remember, this is happening as retribution for the lives of 2 Israeli soldiers. Hundreds of innocent dead for 2 soldiers who knew the risks. An eye for an eye, my ass.
...
And to those who want to say I told you so, claiming that Hizbullah has prepared for this moment and therefore the change in world opinion should have been expected because of the civilian casualties - that is no excuse for letting Hizbullah continue to exist to threaten Israelis...
What all of these righties fail to understand is perception. Oh, they get it all right when it comes to spinning American perception of their failures, but they never take into account others' perceptions around the world. Every policy is, when you boil it down, about the next election in this country.
There's a way to go after Hezbollah without inflaming your neighbors, you know, the people who want to kill you as it is but haven't been given a good enough excuse. Hezbollah was waiting for Israel to pull this, as I said in the aforementioned post. They've had six years to fortify but the wingnuts, like the Israelis, can't seem to wrap their minds around it. Well lookee here, I just grabbed this via Michael Stickings:
...
[Hezbollah's #2 Sheikh Naim] Qassem admitted Hezbollah had been preparing for conflict since Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000. He claimed it had not been convinced that Israel's aspirations in Lebanon were over, despite its withdrawal.
...
The hubris and arrogance of the Bush government is matched by the Israelis. This is not an operation over the disappearance over two Israeli soldiers. This is about Iran and Syria. This is the beginning of a proxy war* by the Bush administration to take on Iran because U.S. public sentiment for opening up a new front in the 'War on Terra' is nonexistent. The missing soldiers were an excuse, pure and simple.
And Hezbollah, thanks to the support of Iran and Syria, was ready for it. Do you think it's some sort of accident we are seeing them using longer range rockets as the Israelis drive them farther north? They let the Israelis believe they weren't so well equipped until they actually had to play their hand. We've had twenty days of this and Hezbollah is continuing to fire into Israel.
The Israelis were of the same mind we were when invading Iraq, the cakewalk mentality of being on top for too long. Our quagmire continues and Israel's newest is just beginning. I quote Sheikh Qassem once more:
... Hezbollah's leadership is used to being in the field...
The Israelis might well defeat Hezbollah eventually, but the damage they are doing to themselves in the long run will be far worse than anything they can do to the Lebanese. The Oil Kings' grip on the Arab Street, and their own power, will not last forever. Allegiances will change as surely as the sands shift and it might not do for Israel to continue a policy of remaining an island in the midst of shark-infested waters.
Update:
More answers if we had the brains to implement them.
Update:
And for the bloggers on our side who believe that by critcizing Israel we're showing disregard for the lives of Israeli citizens, let's remember one thing. The IDF has killed far more innocent Palestinians and Lebanese than Hamas and Hezbollah have killed Israelis, now and cumulatively. After 40 years, when will they get it that Israel's heavy handed tactics don't work? If they did, this conflict would have been over by now. Remember, this is happening as retribution for the lives of 2 Israeli soldiers. Hundreds of innocent dead for 2 soldiers who knew the risks. An eye for an eye, my ass.
*TPM link added after the fact. Via Atrios.
So what does it take ...
For a troll to surf our archives and place comments on posts 2 years old? I just don't get it. I just saw them today (a year after he wrote them) as I was going through some of the old posts and I'm here scratching my head. It seems cowardly to me, being there's no point in my responding a year after the troll posted the comments. It's not as if anyone will see that he supposedly gave me my comeuppance, nor will anyone care. Gotta love the brain power of the Right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)