PeterDavid.net

I still can't help thinking of the worst-case scenario, which is that Lieberman runs as an independent and splits the Democratic vote, thus handing his former seat to a Republican! Mind you, the state is so heavily democrat that it would be hard to believe, but I guess it's now a possibility.

Couple of points:

1) I think Bush would have lost in 2004 if Kerry hadn't been such a wooden douche. That election was about 90% based on personality, regardless of how many polls about "moral values" were misrepresented.

2) I think you're right that this current crop of democrats in Congress have to go before their party can regain control, but it goes beyond simply their support of the war. This crew is pathologically unable to connect with ordinary Americans. It's the one strength Bush has. Despite being a 3rd generation rich boy, he and his party have managed to paint the democrats as the real "elitists". Bush's folksy act works in middle America and the democrats need to find people who can imitate it.

This whole mess with Joe Lieberman just played right into the R's hands. This is gonna get played so well by them that the Dems are gonna get their butts handed to them. And I think Joe's worst-case scenario is dead on.

And I think Joe's worst-case scenario is dead on.

And what exactly is that?

I would just point out the main reason Democrats like Lieberman and Kerry took a hit is because their base is made up of people who oppose the Iraq war. Bush survived in 2004 for the converse reason.

The real question is, are Republicans finally fed up enough with this war to stay home this year? That'll decide who controls Congress.

But yes, it may be that the Democrats need to suffer a bit more before they can get their act together.

I think one of the deciding factors in 2004 was the lack of John Edwards ability to carry southern states, including his home state. Not saying its his fault per se, but the Kerry/Edwards campaign was a trainwreck.

Waiting on Hilary....=)

Question for any Connecticut-ite:

Any insight on the Republican Senatorial candidate Alan Schlesinger? Back before the whole Lieberman thing blew up, it didn't seem as if he were regarded as a really strong candidate for winning the election. If that's still true, then the Joe Nazarro's worst case scenario mentioned above (Lieberman as an independent siphons Democratic votes from Lamont, handing Schlesinger the victory) may give way to the certainly-unlikely-but-fun-to-contemplate scenario where Liberman draws votes from both Lamont and Schlesinger...but to what result!

It says something, though, that Bush gets himself reelected despite being the originator of his wildly unpopular policies (or at least the perpetrator of the policies he's told to institute) but those who wind up supporting those policies get killed in elections.
To be fair, Bush would have done worse than 48% against Lamont in CN, and Lieberman would have done better than 48% in TX.

That Americans are reluctant to switch Commanders in Chief during war
I'm not sure I can agree with that. I really, really wanted to vote against Bush, but there was just no viable option for me. I know a lot of Bush voters would would have dropped Bush for Lieberman

which is that Lieberman runs as an independent and splits the Democratic vote, thus handing his former seat to a Republican
I had the same thought, but after some reading, I would say not to worry. The Repub candidate is just horrible. Most people aren't expecting him to get more than 20% or so in the final election, thus ensuring either Lamont or Lieberman. A good candidate could pull it off, but I don't think that's going to be the case.

This crew is pathologically unable to connect with ordinary Americans.
Lieberman was consistently polled as one of the most likable senators, or did you mean connect as in match up agendas?

I'm very wary of drawing any conclusions just yet. The exact same thing has happened on the right this year too, with the Club for Growth candidates beating 3 moderates. This could well become a horrible failure for both hard wings if their candidates they worked so hard to win primaries run as independents and win.

The real looser either way is bipartisan politics, which is fine by me. The voters have said they care less about people in Washington getting along and playing nice, and more about being going after the base's agenda.

"And I think Joe's worst-case scenario is dead on.

And what exactly is that?"

Sorry. Wasn't clear. I didn't mean Joe Lieberman. I was talking about Joe Nazzaro's first post on this thread.

Lieberman was consistently polled as one of the most likable senators, or did you mean connect as in match up agendas?

I was referring to the Democrats in general, not anyone in particular. Sure, there are exceptions. Clinton had enough charisma to overcome his obvious character flaws.

Lieberman's popularity, particularly among democrat primary voters, though, has been in free fall for years now. The more they saw of his lap dog act on shows like Hannity and Colmes, the less they liked of him. He did very poorly in the 2004 presidential primary and I think the strongly liberal contingent in CT would have voted for Bullwinkle over him this year.

Lieberman was suffering from a severe case of incumbantitis. The symptoms include a disconnect from one's constituents and a sense of entitlement, manifesting as a general annoyance over having to campaign in order to keep a job you've come to believe is yours by divine right.

I really believe that the American voter is hungering for change and for candidates that are worth voting for. The problem for the establishment democrats is that they appear more interested in regaining power in DC than actually using that power for the benefit of the people back home.

I believe there were a few polls prior to the primary that showed Lieberman ahead in a 3-way match. Exactly because he gets Conservative votes too. This is undoubtedly one reason that contributed to his decision to run independently. Of course, much can happen between now and November.

Actually, I have a brand new worse-case scenario, but see what you think about this: the Republican party sends George W. Bush on a whistle-stop tour of the Northeast states, during which he gets photographed with each state's politicians including the Democratic senators, who of course have to be on hand for the president's visit. GW then plants a big wet one on their foreheads at the photo op, which of course is used by each senator's opponents, with lots of snarky captions like 'Friends 4 Ever.' The voters, seeing their candidate getting smooched by George, start thinking about guilt by association and vote against him. The Rebublicans pick up an unprecedented number of states in the Northeast and Bush sends a case of chapstick to Tony Blair.

Y,know, maybe I should wait until the first cup of coffee kicks in before posting.

3 possibilities.

1- Lieberman's defeat is indicative of an overall anti-incumbant attitude that will make 2006 1994 all over again. Bad news for Republicans since they are the party in charge.

2- This is the best possible outcome for Republicans. They can paint the Democrats as having gone whole hog over to the left, to the point where the guy who was deemed worthy of being a heartbeat away from the presidency is now suitable only for purging.

3- A little of both.

Lieberman ran a piss poor campaign up until near the end. Had the campaign gone on a few more days he would have won (especially after the terrorism revelations yesterday). What happens from this point on is up to him. Lamont is a lightweight, almost as much of a non-factor as the Republican. It's Lieberman vs Lieberman.

If he plays up his independence from both parties he could tap into the anti-incumbant mood. Yeah, the idea of Joe Lieberman, Mr Insider, as the Voice of Independence raises a chuckle but it could well work.

But a lot could happen. If the Republicans are too aggressive in endorsing Lieberman it will backfire. On the other hand, some of Lamont's supporters on the web have a win at all cost mentality that will turn off voters.

I'm wondering how Democrats will handle this. Already there are demands from the Daily Kos crowd that Lieberman be stripped of any leadership roles in the party. That might actually help him with the voters. It will certainly piss him off. How's this for a Democrat nightmare scenario--Lieberman wins, the senate is 50/50 and he gets to choose which party rules...after the Democrats have done everything they can to end his political career.

On the other hand, if they don't back Lamont they risk a huige backlash from the internet crowd.

I've thought for some time that the Democrats would win both houses this year. At this point I still think that the House is likely to flip but I'm less sure of the senate. Lieberman's loss makes it easier for the Republicans to keep it.

Has anyone noticed that Lieberman sounds like Marvin the Martian and looks like Senator Palpatine?

Personally, I've always found him to have integrity and principal.

Bill, I'd pick number #3 simply because the more republicans express their love for Lieberman, the more it hurts him in a state where anti-Iraq war sentiment runs very high. On the other hand, Lamont has to prove that he isn't just a tool of DailyKos and other leftist members of the blogosphere, so the general election could go to either them, assuming Lieberman manages to stay in the race.

I'd also agree that the Dems look posed to take over the House, but the Senate is a tossup. It's tough to pick up five Senate seats in one election. I expect they'll have a net gain, even if Lieberman wins and jumps to the GOP side. But I doubt they'll get 51 seats.

BTW, if the Senate is split 50-50, the GOP will retain control because Cheney will have the tie-breaking vote. So a possible Lieberman win and defection would only be a factor if dems pick up 4 seats.

Would he join the GOP? That's the huge question. I know Hannity and Coulter have practically begged him to (and playing those tapes in CT will only help Lamont). I think he might, if they promise him a committee chairmanship.

Personally, I'm thrilled -- not a surprise to those who know me, I'm sure.

I am dismayed by the fact that this is being painted in the media as "likable centrist overthrown by liberal bloggers on a single-issue dispute."

First, it's NOT a single-issue problem and it never was. Am I upset that Lieberman avidly supported both the war and the Patriot Act? Yes, but that (unfortunately) describes a large portion of Democrats in Congress.

Lieberman goes a helluva lot further than that. He's not only supported the war, he's actively spoken out against people who criticize Bush and his administration, saying that Bush is the commander-in-chief and thus must be followed. Lieberman helped prevent any sort of filibuster against Samuel Alito, and we can all see just how well he's turned out. Lieberman backed up Bill Frist (R-DeadCats) in his claim that Terri Schiavo was responsive and thus needed government intervention over the wishes of her husband.

In short, either Lieberman is a rank opportunist who'll turn on his own party to maintain his image as a "moralist", or he honestly believes all the tripe he's peddling. In the latter case, his opinions should put him in the Republican camp; in the former case, he should be out of politics entirely. Either way, I'm overjoyed to see him lose, and not even remotely surprised that the formation of his "Connecticut for Lieberman" party once again sees him putting his own agenda well ahead of the good of the party or the country.

Already there are demands from the Daily Kos crowd that Lieberman be stripped of any leadership roles in the party.

Yep, and it's really not that hard to understand. By refusing to accept the result of a Democratic primary and choosing to run as an independent, Lieberman has consciously and openly broken with the Democratic party. That's not generally an action that invites responses of "hey, sure, keep your posts" from the leadership. It sure as hell wouldn't from the GOP.

Now, I wouldn't strip him of the posts at the moment. I would, however, make it very clear to him that IF he runs as an independent and IF he wins as an independent over the Democratic candidate, he will be working from the ground up -- no seniority, no leadership positions.

Truth be told, I'm not sure he's going to go through with this. Almost everyone of substance has said they're going to support Lamont as the primary winner, including the head of the DSCC and his own senatorial partner in CT. It's my hope that a couple of polls will show his support way down, and that as such he'll take a graceful exit. It might get him back a modicum of respect. Not much (at least in my case), but at least it would show more of a grasp on reality than the administration he's so repeatedly hitched his wagon to.

(Oh, and Patrick -- please don't insult Marvin the Martian like that again. You might make him angry. Very, very angry.)

TWL

Actually, I have an even bigger worse case scenario: Twenty-one Islamic Fascists hijack ten airplanes originating from the UK and blow them up over the Atlantic, killing hundreds of innocent people.

I know, I know, such a silly idea! Who would ever do something like that? And even if they did, could you blame them?

I mean, Bush is SO evil: he hatched a war that thrust an entire region into chaos, committing thousands to death and inciting all kinds of justified retribution ... just because he wants POWER. And, he is so tainted with vile evil conservativeness that his mere presence can tank one man's poltical career!!

Come on! You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this ... this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening? That Lieberman's entire political career is over because he, in sticking to what he believes to be right, sided with President Bush on one issue?

You people are delusionally nuts. Lurking here used to be fun, a kind of unique perspective to shudder at from time to time, but this ... this is flat out scary.

I am dismayed by the fact that this is being painted in the media as "likable centrist overthrown by liberal bloggers on a single-issue dispute."

Well, doing otherwise would require the media to do something other than regurgitate Republican talking points, which is too much of a bother.

I prefer to let the Connecticutians speak for themselves.

--R.J.

You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this ... this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening?

Considering the Bush Administration coordinated with the British government to delay raiding the terrorists until after the Vermont primary results were in (Bush was briefed a week ago), I'd seriously question your unblinking loyalty to the Administration.

--R.J.

Robert,

As much as I dislike Shrub, I do not believe that he delayed the arrests until after the Primary. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the arrests take place on Monday, the day before the election? It might have made the difference in making Shrub's little buddy at the Democrat's candidate.

"As much as I dislike Shrub, I do not believe that he delayed the arrests until after the Primary."

I don't think he delayed it directly -- after all, even Bush can't push around the British government directly -- but I think they did nudge Blair into waiting for a spell. As reported here,

[White House spokesman Tony] Snow said Bush first learned in detail about the plot on Friday, and received two detailed briefings on it on Saturday and Sunday, as well as had two conversations about it with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

But a senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism.

I'm hard-pressed to think of what other reasons the British government could have for delaying the raid for five days, aside from buying time for Bush/Cheney...

--R.J.

Anonymous Internet Jerks

"Come on! You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this ... this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening?"

Yeah. And you're taking the time to talk about our talking about it.

:)

As much as I dislike Shrub, I do not believe that he delayed the arrests until after the Primary. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the arrests take place on Monday, the day before the election? It might have made the difference in making Shrub's little buddy at the Democrat's candidate.

Not at all. Lieberman serves the Republican party and GOP incumbents much better as someone martyred by Radical Left than as just someone who sucessfully defended his party's primary.

"You people are delusionally nuts. Lurking here used to be fun, a kind of unique perspective to shudder at from time to time, but this ... this is flat out scary."

No, what's flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

PAD

You know, after reading the post from "Anonymous Internet Jerks" (does he have MPD?), I'm thinking about how angry the political discourse has gotten in recent years, particularly in the blogosphere. Now, both sides have been guilty, but it seems like the right has been getting even more shrill than usual. I think they realize they have more to lose right now and, for the first time in years, we're seeing real fear in their dialogue. And as someone once said, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate is the path to the dark side.

AIJ, you're really sound like you're about to plunge head first into the dark side.

I don't think he delayed it directly -- after all, even Bush can't push around the British government directly -- but I think they did nudge Blair into waiting for a spell.

I have to wonder if these raids are worth anything more than a brief blip for the GOP incumbants. After all, they're also reminding us that the British foiled an attempt to blow up airplanes, while our government has captured: seven dipshits living in a warehouse with no weapons or plans and handful of guys who posted on an internet message board about their plan to flood a city that's above sea level.

Who's really making headway against terror plots?

"As much as I dislike Shrub, I do not believe that he delayed the arrests until after the Primary."

I don't think he delayed it directly -- after all, even Bush can't push around the British government directly -- but I think they did nudge Blair into waiting for a spell. As reported here

Er, I think that's called politics and it's been going on since George Washington left the White House. Hardly worthy of demonizing, and hardly worthy of ignoring the larger fact of the matter: a threat still exists - ideological groups in the name of an otherwise peaceful religion want to kill as many of us as possible.

No, what's flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

PAD

Um, I won't, but thanks! Although, is taking a few minutes of time to experience/read other perspectives really that scary to you, PAD? Just because I think you're largely delusional, doesn't mean I may not be able to learn from you.

Now, both sides have been guilty, but it seems like the right has been getting even more shrill than usual. I think they realize they have more to lose right now and, for the first time in years, we're seeing real fear in their dialogue. And as someone once said, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate is the path to the dark side.

Den, you're right, divisive behavior has increased over the past five years (although, I would blame the nut-bags on the radio more than message boards), but I assure you, my path is quite clear and quite light.

Folks, I haven't seen anything to back up this conspiracy theory other than Keith Olbermann of MSNBC asserting that it couldn't be coincidence that this happened just after the primary vote. The idea that "such-and-such just can't be a coincidence" isn't proof of anything. It's circular logic.

Just because W. was briefed a week ago means nothing. To make an arrest, you need suspects, and they may not have had them at that point. They may not have known the exact nature of the plot. And sounding the alarm too early might have given the terrorists the chance to go underground.

As for those who believe that failing to catch all of the suspects is further evidence of a conspiracy: criminals often go to great lengths to avoid being caught. Some of them can be quite good at eluding law enforcement.

I am no fan of W.'s. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. But making such wild accusations against him does nothing but obscure the truly crappy stuff that he's actually done. Why is everyone so intent on doing that?

Posted by: Anonymous Internet Jerks at August 11, 2006 04:35 PM

Den, you're right, divisive behavior has increased over the past five years (although, I would blame the nut-bags on the radio more than message boards), but I assure you, my path is quite clear and quite light.

Actions speak louder -- and mean more, in many cases -- than words. Since we're using "The Dark Side" as a metaphor in this instance for engaging in divisive and unproductive rhetorical tactics, you are in fact treading "The Dark Side." You can declare you're not until you're blue in the face, but it's like asserting that a circle is a square; you can repeat the falsehood to your heart's content, but the circle will remain a square and reality will remain unbudged.

I am no fan of W.'s. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. But making such wild accusations against him does nothing but obscure the truly crappy stuff that he's actually done. Why is everyone so intent on doing that?

I don't think anyone here really believes that Bush twisted Tony's arm and potentially endangered the War on Terror (tm) just for the sake of scoring a few political points.

The thing is, no one here would be the least bit shocked or surprised if it turned out that he did.

"I'm hard-pressed to think of what other reasons the British government could have for delaying the raid for five days, aside from buying time for Bush/Cheney...

--R.J."

I can. From what I've gathered, the Brits had these guys thoroughly penetrated and could have gathered them up at will. They only waited as long as they did to allow them to identify the maximum number of people in the the network, allowing them to pick up as many of them as possible. When they started to get close to doing some actual harm, the Brits fell on them like the Sword of Damocles.

Considering the Bush Administration coordinated with the British government to delay raiding the terrorists until after the Vermont primary results were in (Bush was briefed a week ago), I'd seriously question your unblinking loyalty to the Administration.

You know, comments like this are why Democrats lose elections. You really have one of two choices. Either Bush is much more intelligent than some of you think, or Bush really would put people at risk when there is really no clear payoff for his administration. I mean, give me a break, if this had come out before the election, there would be cries that he manipulated things.

There is a much more obvious reason the arrests were delayed: A desire to catch as many involved as possible so that there would be no future attacks from this group.

I fully realize not all of you who disagree with Bush agree with this comment. But it does seem to reflect the attitude many Democrats have of Bush, that he is so interested in himself he would put others at risk. I won't try to change your mind, but simply say that I am convinced the majority do not believe this is true. You may think he is incompetent or had wrong ideas for starting the way, but that is worlds apart from saying he deliberately did things for personal gain.

Iowa Jim

Posted by: Sasha at August 11, 2006 05:06 PM

I don't think anyone here really believes that Bush twisted Tony's arm and potentially endangered the War on Terror (tm) just for the sake of scoring a few political points.

Actually, there are few people posting here (not everyone, not the majority, but a few) who obviously do believe it. So I thought it might be worthwhile to address the issue.

You may think he is incompetent or had wrong ideas for starting the way, but that is worlds apart from saying he deliberately did things for personal gain.

Jim,

Would you acknowledge that it's possible for people to believe (a) in some situations and (b) in others? I do not, for example, buy into the conspiracy idea that he was behind 9/11 or had sufficiently specific notice that he could decide to "let it happen" -- that one falls under incompetence to me. I do, however, think that there are any number of things that were done for personal or political gain, and assuming the current junta doesn't rewrite all the history books I'm hopeful that much of the administration's criminality will eventually be demonstrated to a sufficient degree to convince most everyone.

In any case, I hope you're willing to allow for a viewpoint that is not quite so binary as the one you initially described.

(And while I credit Bush personally with very little intelligence, many of those in his administration are clearly intelligent. Twisted and evil, more machine now than man ... but intelligent.)

TWL

"But it does seem to reflect the attitude many Democrats have of Bush, that he is so interested in himself he would put others at risk."

Well, the invasion of Iraq was motivated by self-interest, and he put--what, 140,000 troops? More?--at risk, so...

PAD

Commenting on something Dr. ObviousSo said up above about Lieberman being one of the most likable senators, if I'm reading likable right, just because I like someone doesn't mean I think they're going to do a good job. Poll after poll before Bush got reelected said most people would rather have a beer with Bush than Kerry, but as much fun as THAT might be, who would do the better job? I would still have to say Kerry, but let's not go there.

Ever notice how people are always delusional nuts and you never hear about delusional bolts?

I think Den is right, political discussions have gotten nasty lately, PARTICULARLY in the blogsphere--mostly because the people don't have to look each other in the eye to be ignorant pricks. "oh, it's just online, these people don't really exsist, what do I care?" People DO exsist, and it's MUCH easier while blogging to look like a classic Doofus Elextronicus since reading the typed word lacks the inflection behind the spoken word.

Timm, just to jump in here, what would his Sith name be? Darth Sillius? Best I could come up wit on short notie. Betcha I think of a killer one at 3 in the morning.

Part of the problem with Lieberman going independent, is that some people can't see past their pointy noses to see what might be the greater good. I know people that have voted Republican just because they're making more money now than when Clinton was in office. Never did they consider that when Clinton was in, they were working in a pizza joint and got out of College just before Bush went in and they could owe their larger paychecks more to chronoligical time and the fact that they got a decent job out of college than who was in DC. But then, we do get the governemnt we deserve, don't we?
Is it just me, or did that last line sound like something Brian Blessed would've said in the first episode of the Black Adder?

But it does seem to reflect the attitude many Democrats have of Bush, that he is so interested in himself he would put others at risk.

Not so much interested in himself, but interested in listening only to himself (which I think is a distinct difference). The poor contingency planning across the board (poor even for big government) seems to me the mark of a poor planner, with a weak grasp of details and an unwillingness to sweat the small stuff that makes the big stuff happen. THAT would put others at risk.

You know, I'm the most cynical conspiracy theorist there is as far as this administration is concerned, but even I don't believe that the British government would have waited a couple of days to pick these dudes up. God forbid something HAD actually happened and it came out that Blair had caved in to Bush, he would have been run out of 10 Downing Street on a rail.

From what I've read so far, which some previous posters have already alluded to here, MI5 did indeed know about this plot for quite some time, so much so that they had already installed trackers on all of the suspect's cars so they knew where they were going every instant of every day. The reason they waited was A) build up evidence and create as airtight a case as possible, and B) try to cast as wide a net as possible so that when the hammer finally came down, they could arrest everybody they could. And as soon as they realized the terrorists were about to try a dry run, they swooped in and picked them up.

Incidentally, I'm not quite sure where Lurch, I mean Chertoff and company are so busy patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Thus far, everything I've read indicates that this was a joint British/Pakistani operation, and our governent had no involvement other than being informed about what was happening. If anybody knows more than that, I'm perfectly happy to be corrected, but it sounds to me that after this plot and tracking down the 7/7 bombers, the British anti-terrorism forces are doing what our government wishes they'd been able to do. Take a bow, Chertoff; you don't deserve it, but after Katrina, even undeserved, reflected glory is better than none at all.

I am someone who has political leanings toward the right, libertarian more than republican.

We ARE at war though. The war started well before George Bush became President. We displayed our vulnerability by failing to meaningfully respond when the Kobar towers were destroyed, when the US Cole was attacked. Bombing an aspirin factory and a few tents made us look weak and innefectual.

No wonder Al-Quaida thought that they would have no problem when they took down the World Trade Center on September 11th.

How soon we forget the threat.

It is not a "politically correct" war against terrorism though, it is a religious war. The Islam-fasciasts (yes, they are Nazis) have started a war against the West. Against the United States, Great Britian, Israel. Because we are largely Christrian or Jewish? India is not safe from islamic fasciasts based in Pakistan. Austrialians vacationing in Indonesia are not safe from islamic fasciasts.

The enemy will not be satisfied until their version of religion is the only version. Until we all become servants of Allah. Until the celephate is re-established. Worldwide.

I urge you to wake up. The democrats are perecieved as weak on defense. In collusion with the Legacy Media and the ACLU the democrats appear to be trying to do everything they can to put obstructions in the way of the fight against the terrorists.

Wiretapping was used to uncover the threat. Following financial transactions was used to uncover the threat. Yes the British and Pakistanis, and now Italy, were heavily involved in eliminating (or reducing) this threat. This time. But, without the tools that our intelligence community needs to have, when the teeth in the Patriot Act have been removed, we will not be able to thwart the next attack. And... they WILL try again.

Yes, Joseph Lieberman lost a primary election this week. However, only a fraction of the registered voters partipated, and of them, he did gather 48% of that vote. Hardly a mandate for Lamont. What the Lamont victory does say is the the democrat party has no room for any dissent. What's next, would a pro-life democrat be hounded out of office (maybe they alreay have been)

And, yes, it may be as bad on the Republican side as well, when a respeced moderate representative like Joe Schwartz in Michigan is defeted by a hard-right conservative candidate. That's not good either. Both parties are polarizing.

Meanwhile...

Well, the invasion of Iraq was motivated by self-interest, and he put--what, 140,000 troops? More?--at risk, so...

Where did that come from. Saddam Hussien was a major supporter of Hamas. Hussien was providing thousands of dollars to the families of every suicide bomber who killed innocents in Israel. This is the Saddam who did have weapons of mass distruction who did use them against his own people. This is the Saddam who failed to honor his agreements when the truce was signed in allowing inspectors access.

I'm not quite sure where Lurch, I mean Chertoff.... Gee I thought Lurch ran for President on the D ticket last time. Rather, Chertoff seems more like Director Bones.

For some reason the mental image of all of the old congress "dying off" put a smile on my face. Yeah, I'm a disturbed man, but damn it those bastards need term limits. F*$%ing career politicians...

Hmmm. GaryB, please just don't quote the GOP party line. We have all read it before.

If Bush was truly an effective President, why is Bin Laden still alive?

Come on! You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this ... this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening? That Lieberman's entire political career is over because he, in sticking to what he believes to be right, sided with President Bush on one issue?

Blah, blah blah. It's PAD's blog. On any given day there are more important things to talk about than comics so does that mean we never get to talk about comics? Presumably he had something he wanted to say about the Lieberman thing. As opposed to the thwarted terrorism attempt, where the only rational response is basically "Golly, glad that got thwarted."

"I'm hard-pressed to think of what other reasons the British government could have for delaying the raid for five days, aside from buying time for Bush/Cheney..."

Huh? Where is the evidence that there was any delay at all? You don't always raid when you first find out about something, you do it when you can get the best results. At any rate, I still don't see why they would deliberately cost Lieberman the election...are you suggesting that Lamont is a Karl Rove tool?

I don't think anyone here really believes that Bush twisted Tony's arm and potentially endangered the War on Terror (tm) just for the sake of scoring a few political points.

I think you're incorrect, it seems to me that at least one person has pretty much said just that.

The whole "this happened now to distract us from (fill in the blank)" has gotten tiresome. It's beyond paranoia, entering some kind of almost religious belief in the idea that Things Don't Just Happen. there has to be a Greater Power behind evreything. I've always thought that a lot of what was behind the Kennedy Assasination theories was the fact that it is far more comforting to believe that a man like Kennedy was brought down by a cabal than by some lone nut. Some folks would much rather believe that the Twin Towers were destroyed by their own government than admit that it was planned by a man who looks like he ought to be molesting sheep.

Back to the Lieberman story--The first post-primary Rasmussen poll shows Lieberman leading Lamont, 46-41, (the Republican gets 6)

Thus far, everything I've read indicates that this was a joint British/Pakistani operation, and our governent had no involvement other than being informed about what was happening. If anybody knows more than that, I'm perfectly happy to be corrected

For what it's worth, from TIME; "MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

I think that might be the best idea of them all.
Not just the Democrats, but the Republicans too.
Vote as many out as possible and get some new blood in office. See if that will help (even if only just a little) to overcome the stagnation of stupidity.

Bill Mulligan: "As opposed to the thwarted terrorism attempt, where the only rational response is basically 'Golly, glad that got thwarted.'"

Cynics like me are reluctant to give credit where credit is due. But if you're going to criticize the government for its mistakes, then, conversely, you should acknowledge when they get things right.

And this operation had all the earmarks of Getting Things Right. The Pakistani, British, and U.S. governments worked together, sharing intelligence and acting on it swiftly and appropriately. Good, capable, and heroic people averted a tragedy.

I believe W. is an awful, incompetent and sleazy president. But that shouldn't stop me -- or anyone else -- from being grateful for the work that intelligence and law enforcement officials from three countries did to keep the world safer. They averted an attack that could have rivaled -- or surpassed -- the carnage of 9/11. I, for one, am grateful, and refuse to look for an excuse in to prove myself "more cynical than thou" about this.

Patrick: "Has anyone noticed that Lieberman sounds like Marvin the Martian and looks like Senator Palpatine?"

Not until you mentioned it, no. But now that you have, I'm not going to be able to take the poor man seriously anymore. Because, yeah, you're dead on.

Anonymous Internet Jerk: Come on! You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this ... this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening?
Luigi Novi: In the first place, discussion here generally follows whatever the topic of Peter's blog entry is, and since he made an entry on that subject, that's what we're talking about. Where is it written that he (or we) have to talk about what you think we should? Blog entries, columns and articles generally follow observations or insight that the author gleans from a particular news item. Perhaps Peter didn't have any particular take on the foiled terrorist plots that merited a blog entry. Who are you to dictate to him or us what we're supposed to talk about?

Second, you're here yourself talking about it. Why is this? Are you surfing the entire Net trying to steer every single conversation about Lieberman to the terror plots, or just this one? If you want to talk about that topic, why not find a website where you can do so? Why act as if a private site belonging to someone else has to cater to your tastes?

Anonymous Internet Jerk: Um, I won't, but thanks! Although, is taking a few minutes of time to experience/read other perspectives really that scary to you, PAD?
Luigi Novi: You didn’t offer a “perspective”. You criticized everyone here merely for the topic they chose to talk about—which is what Peter was clearly responding to, and rightfully so, since you’ve chosen to engage us in that topic yourself.

My dilike/disrespect for Lieberman stems almost entirely from his heavy involvement with censorship in particular and the "Parents' Television Council" specifically. When Gore chose him as his running mate, I picked *that* as the Kiss of Death of *that* campaign. I voted for them anyway, 'cos I knew what the stakes were.

If only he were as willing to keep fighting back then as he seems to be now...

Wildcat

Yes, Joseph Lieberman lost a primary election this week. However, only a fraction of the registered voters partipated

The Connecticut primary had a turnout of 43%, last time I checked. That's roughly double the turnout of most non-presidential primaries in the state.

As such, while your statement is of course technically correct, it's laughable in practice.

The first post-primary Rasmussen poll shows Lieberman leading Lamont, 46-41, (the Republican gets 6)

Thanks, Bill. Considering that the pre-primary polls showed JoeyBaby leading by something like a 30% margin, I'd read this as evidence that he's not likely to make it all the way to November. Too bad, so sad.

TWL

You know yesterday I spoke to my uncle in London, and asked him what the feeling was over there.

his response. the general feeling is I hope we got the right ones this time.

Apparently there's been a few mistaken arrests and one shot.

"We ARE at war though. The war started well before George Bush became President. We displayed our vulnerability by failing to meaningfully respond when the Kobar towers were destroyed, when the US Cole was attacked. Bombing an aspirin factory and a few tents made us look weak and innefectual.

No wonder Al-Quaida thought that they would have no problem when they took down the World Trade Center on September 11th.

How soon we forget the threat."

And how soon we forget that every move Clinton made was second guessed and hamstrung by his political opponents and right wing pundits who declared that any offensive or retaliatory actions Clinton took were designed purely to take attention away from Monica Lewinsky.

In a day and age where the focus is on terrorism, thank God that ten years ago, the foresighted right wing was more concerned about what really mattered: Oral sex in the Oval office.

PAD

>Thanks, Bill. Considering that the pre-primary polls showed JoeyBaby leading by something like a 30% margin, I'd read this as evidence that he's not likely to make it all the way to November. Too bad, so sad.

Yeah but then again, Lamont was up by 15 in those same polls and ended up just barely winning. The momentum--I refuse to say "Joementum"--is clearly on Lieberman's side.

If Lieberman runs the campaign he did up until the last week, it's Senator Lamont time. If he shows some of the fire he had in the closing days and/or the Lamont internut crowd keeps shooting themselves in the foot I think Lieberman will win.

The focus so far has been almost entirely on Lieberman. Now there will be closer looks at Lamont--which could cut either way. I have to say, he has been less than impressive in what I've seen and not because I may disagree with his policies. He needs to develop a personality and fast. You don't win elections just by being "the guy next to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson".

And how soon we forget that every move Clinton made was second guessed and hamstrung by his political opponents and right wing pundits who declared that any offensive or retaliatory actions Clinton took were designed purely to take attention away from Monica Lewinsky.

But did that stop him? I mean, does anyone think that, but for Monica, Clinton would have zeroed his lazer-like focus on stopping international terrorism? Did terrorism even come up during any of the debates of 92 and 96?

Had there been no Monica the Clinton second term would have been more or less like the first--Clinton adopting Republican policies and making Democrats believe they'd won, while the Republicans continued to rack up seats in the House, Senate, Governorships and State Houses. Terrorism? Wasn't anything most people cared about.

When California gets hit with The Big One in 2017 there will probably be some Bush apologist that will claim that, but for the distraction of the investigations into Abu Ghraib, Bush would have been able to prepare for the inevitable. And so it goes.

And for some REAL nightmare fodder for you folks who dislike Lieberman, how about the thought of a unity ticket of McCain and Lieberman in 2008? Who exactly could beat them?

Bill Mulligan: "But did that stop him? I mean, does anyone think that, but for Monica, Clinton would have zeroed his lazer-like focus on stopping international terrorism? Did terrorism even come up during any of the debates of 92 and 96?"

Actually, yeah, I think it did. When Clinton's term ended, I watched a Frontline documentary about the Clinton years. Some people who were "in the know" stated that Clinton's fear of negative public reaction led him to avoid giving an order to strike at bin Laden, even though intel strongly indicated they had him pin-pointed. Clinton feared that if the intel was wrong, he'd be accused of killing people to deflect attention from the Lewinsky scandal. After all, that's what happened after Clinton ordered the bombing of that alleged "baby bottle factory" in retaliation for Al Qaeda activity.

That said, I think your larger thesis is correct. Even if Clinton had felt empowered to strike at bin Laden, there would have been no national appetite for anything more than very, very limited strikes. I think it's safe to say the vast majority of the U.S. wouldn't have been prepared for an all-out assault on Afghanistan until after September 11, 2001.

W. has had no such excuses, though. Once the World Trade Centers were toppled and a good portion of the Pentagon leveled, people's perceptions changed. Most of us were willing to back our president, even though some of us (like me) had reservations about him. W. took that goodwill and squandered it with his one-dimensional "for-me-or-against-me" worldview, and with his wrongheaded, ill-advised and stupidly executed invasion of Iraq.

Regarding Iraq, it's true that hindsight is 20-20. But, you know, there were intelligence and military officials who were telling W. from the get-go that Iraq was the wrong target, and that his plan for the invasion and its aftermath were flawed. It looks like their foresight was 20-20.

W. and the neo-cons exhibited monstrous, colossal, and almost unimaginable hubris in believing that they knew more about waging war than did military experts, many of whom have actually had experience fighting wars.

Bill Mulligan: "And for some REAL nightmare fodder for you folks who dislike Lieberman, how about the thought of a unity ticket of McCain and Lieberman in 2008? Who exactly could beat them?"

I'd probably vote for that ticket. Unless the president kicks the bucket, Veep isn't a terribly important job, and I don't think McCain would've actually gotten us involved in Iraq. I know he's pretending to be W.'s best bud now, but both Democrats and Republicans have to play to their respective bases to win the primary, and then rush back to the middle to win the election. It is a sad fact of life that I hope changes in my lifetime, but for now it is what it is.

Bill, normally that's true but McCain is not the picture of health. I hope he runs and unless Guliani is in the picture I don't know who else I'd prefer but I think everyone will have to take a good hard look at who he picks for VP.

I really hope McCain gets the Republican nomination in '08. He's my favorite Republican (okay, he's the only Republican I actually like). I probably still won't vote for him, but that really depends on who the Democrats run against him. I'm not too fond of the new Hillary for instance, so that could be a toss up there.

Bill Mulligan "Bill, normally that's true but McCain is not the picture of health. I hope he runs and unless Guliani is in the picture I don't know who else I'd prefer but I think everyone will have to take a good hard look at who he picks for VP."

Well, I was being somewhat flip -- I don't know that I'd place any bets on a McCain-Lieberman pairing in '08.

And, to be fair, although Lieberman continues to voice support for the war in Iraq, I tend to wonder if he would have initiated it had he been president. I think a large part of what got us into Iraq is the Bush family's personal grudge against Saddam Hussein for humiliating the elder Bush by, y'know, withstanding the first Iraq war and thumbing his nose at us.

Thanks, Bill. Considering that the pre-primary polls showed JoeyBaby leading by something like a 30% margin, I'd read this as evidence that he's not likely to make it all the way to November. Too bad, so sad.

Yeah but then again, Lamont was up by 15 in those same polls and ended up just barely winning.

No reflection on you, but I love the way that a margin of victory greater than Bush's alleged "mandate" is now depicted as "just barely winning." And he was never up by as many as 15 points, so far as I know -- 13, maybe.

The momentum--I refuse to say "Joementum"--is clearly on Lieberman's side.

T'ain't so clear on this side of the screen. I'll just leave it at that.

If Lieberman runs the campaign he did up until the last week, it's Senator Lamont time. If he shows some of the fire he had in the closing days and/or the Lamont internut crowd keeps shooting themselves in the foot I think Lieberman will win.

Exactly what shooting do you think is going on here? Don't tell me you've bought in to the "Lamont hacked the Lieberman site!" nonsense.

I completely agree that there's now going to be a sharper focus on Lamont, and that said focus could conceivably cut either way. Obviously, my hope is obvious.

(And as for a McCain/Lieberman ticket, that would actually make me significantly LESS likely to vote McCain in '08.)

TWL

Tim Lynch: "I love the way that a margin of victory greater than Bush's alleged "mandate" is now depicted as "just barely winning." And he was never up by as many as 15 points, so far as I know -- 13, maybe."

I was one of those people whose jaw hit the floor the day after the 2004 election, when W. and his supporters had the temerity to call his slim margin of victory a "mandate." Love W. or hate him, the indisputable fact is that calling his slim majority a mandate is identical to calling a circle a square.

It's particularly ironic that a man who campaigned in 2000 as a "uniter, not a divider" has done such a good job of aggravating the polarization of this country (I don't want to say he created it, because the polarization pre-dates his candidacy). And it's come back to bite him in the ass. Dubya was only able to speak to and gain the support of roughly half the nation when things were going relatively in his favor. That's why things are gettin' mighty lonely for him now that conditions are less favorable.

1Re: Possible McCain Presidential bid.

I used to like McCain. Now though, I see him as the man who failed to prevent us from having to face the horrors of Bush II. The fact that he's now cozying up to the man who threw so much mud at him during the 2000 GOP primaries doesn't do much for him in my eyes either.

As soon as I first heard about Bush's "mandate" the first thing that went through my mind was "This guy is only talking to the people he thinks he has in his pocket, the heck with everyone else." I can really see, in my darker moments(Dark Sean, a scary concept in itself!) Bush looking around the Oval Office and saying "To hell with everyone that DIDN'T vote me in, I'm going to give all my backers whatever they want."

The far left Dean-ocrats got rid of a friend who voted with the party over 90% of the time.

Exactly what shooting do you think is going on here? Don't tell me you've bought in to the "Lamont hacked the Lieberman site!" nonsense.

No, I was thinking more of the Lieberman in blackface crap that Jane Hamsher, one of Lamont's major backers, ran. It was stupid and his attempts to pretend that he was barely aware of blogs and what they do was worse. (At least that's how it came off in the reports I read--I wasn't following this primary with my usual zeal).

The bloggers are a two edged sword. Without them I doubt that Lamont would have gotten anywhere so they have been a tremendous asset. The danger is that you can end up having to defend or denounce them every time they say something stupid, which for a lot of them is a regular occurrence. The blogosphere has a pretty high degree of vulgarity, demonization, crude humor, and other attributes that may not play well with the general public.

I honestly don't know which way the general election will go. If I had to bet I'd give a slight edge to Lieberman but a lot may depend on what the national party does--they may give lip service to supporting Lamont but if they keep Lieberman in positions of power in the Senate it's clear who they will expect to win.

Re: McCain as a presidential candidate in 2008.

I might have voted for McCain in 2000 or 2004 (though only if I were even less satisfied with the Democratic nominees), but since McCain decided to "mend fences" with the Falwell Faction of the GOP, there's not a chance in hell that McCain will ever earn my potential vote. He was right about Falwell and the Far Right Christian Conservatives in 2000, and he should have stuck to his guns about them. But, noooooooooooooo. He decided that his plans to run in 2008 required sucking up to Falwell. McCain lost whatever "maverick independent" claim he had when he kowtowed to Falwell.
The bitter irony, of course, will be that Falwell won't endorse McCain anyway since there will be an even more "acceptable" Republican that Falwell (and Robertson and all the rest of the Krew) will prefer.

You know yesterday I spoke to my uncle in London, and asked him what the feeling was over there.

his response. the general feeling is I hope we got the right ones this time.

Apparently there's been a few mistaken arrests and one shot.

I wouldn't say that it was the general feeling - but it's certainly not an unusual response.

And so far there have been two people shot. The first was a Brazillian national (Jean Charles de Menezes) who was being followed when the police mistook him for a suspect they were supposed to be following, someone panicked and he was shot point blank eight times (seven in the head - one in the shoulder), while a further three bullets missed.

(We Brits like to be sure we get our man - even when it isn't our man)

The second was the result of a police dawn raid on a house in Forest Gate, London based on received intelligence(!) where one of the suspects was shot throught the shoulder when he came down the stairs thinking his house was being robbed. The shooter apparently did not realise he shot the suspect.

So based on their track record, people are a little skeptical of the police when it comes to foiling of terror plots.

Incidentally, for the conspiracy theorists concerned about the timing of the raid - it actually came at the same time as a report was released on the failures to (still) properly equip British soldiers in Iraq, which was promptly buried by the big (and often insubstantial) story. So maybe we Brits are possible with coming up with our own political machinations without any help from y'all.

I seriously will never understand why so many Jews are liberals (or on the far-left).

This is what the extreme leftists think of Jews.

http://www.zombietime.com/stop_the_us_israeli_war_8_12_2006/

(I tried to post this yesterday, but it seems to have not went through for some reason. So reposting.)

PAD: The moment I saw George Bush cozying up to Joe Lieberman, I had a feeling that Lieberman was toast.

Remember this quote in November. We'll see just how "toasted" Lieberman is.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

The Rasmussen poll has Lieberman at 46% to Lamont's 41% in a general election. Lamont's 52% of Democrats is pretty much all the votes he's ever going to be able to get. Lieberman, on the other hand, will keep his 48% of the Democrats and has enough crossover appeal to pick up moderate and Republican votes.

No, I was thinking more of the Lieberman in blackface crap that Jane Hamsher, one of Lamont's major backers, ran.

Ah, yes. I do remember that (and yes, it was highly stupid) -- I had not heard that it was a major backer who ran it. ("Major" in what sense, BTW? Financial, or just outspoken?)

The bloggers are a two edged sword. Without them I doubt that Lamont would have gotten anywhere so they have been a tremendous asset. The danger is that you can end up having to defend or denounce them every time they say something stupid, which for a lot of them is a regular occurrence.

Haven't you been arguing in the past that people shouldn't have to denounce people on "their side" when they act stupid or extreme, though? I seem to recall that coming up more than once over the past year and change.

The blogosphere has a pretty high degree of vulgarity, demonization, crude humor, and other attributes that may not play well with the general public.

Your opinion of the general public is far more genteel than mine. :-)

TWL

It looks like I have to retract something that I said in a previous post, about how I didn't think the British government would have been pressured by America to wait for a bit in terms of picking up the alleged terrorists. According to NBC News this morning, it appears that the opposite is in fact true and that our government applied pressure resulting in the terrorists getting arrested a few days EARLY, which means it may now be difficult to make some of the charges stick. Some of the suspects didn't have plane tickets yet, or in fact passports when they were arrested, so they may not exactly have been caught as red-handed as they could have been had the British goverment waited a few days as they originally intended. I'm not quite sure why the US applied that pressure prematurely, although it seems reasonable to assume that with the anniversary of 9/11 coming up, the White House probably felt more comfortable knowing these terrorists were tucked up in their cells.

Regarding a 2008 McCain presidency, I would would have no hesitation in voting for him, nor would I have had any hesitation back in 2000. I can't help thinking but for the Republicans wanting a much more malleable presidential candidate and basically forcing McCain out during the primaries, the world would be a very different and maybe safer place. I can't help thinking though, that McCain probably has to take a lot of showers at night, having to cozy up to the Christian right republican base he thinks he needs to get elected. Personally, I believe there are enough moderates, independents and disaffected Democrats out there that he could still get elected without having to kiss Falwell's ass, but that's just my opinion. I do know this: although I usually vote Democrat, if it's a Clinton vs McCain match-up in 2008, I'm voting McCain. And by then, I strongly suspect that Lieberman will be just a political memory.

I might have voted for McCain in 2000 or 2004 (though only if I were even less satisfied with the Democratic nominees), but since McCain decided to "mend fences" with the Falwell Faction of the GOP, there's not a chance in hell that McCain will ever earn my potential vote.

Well, one of the things that McCain's supporters used to say was that he was far better able than Bush to be a true uniter not a divider. His ability to work with and be good friends with democrats was evidence of such. While Fallwell is right down there with Sharpton in my eyes, McCain's ability to deal with him with something other than the usual Ann Coulter/Randi Rhodes cheap shots, to me, idicates a tempermate well suited to the presidency.

But, as I've suspected all along, I think a lot of Democrats who have been saying for the last 8 years that McCain was a republican they could support will suddenly discover that he is just another "enemy". But enough will cross over to make his victory assured, assuming no other factors come into play (ie I have no idea what will happen :)

Ah, yes. I do remember that (and yes, it was highly stupid) -- I had not heard that it was a major backer who ran it. ("Major" in what sense, BTW? Financial, or just outspoken?)

A bit of both, it would seem. She raised a good bit of cash and pimped his campaign tirelessly in her blog--even moving to CT to work on the campaign. No big deal there. But she also directed a video for them and drove the campain manager to Lamont's Colbert report appearance in New York. She's high enough on the food chain that his attempts to disavow her were somewhat suspect.

Haven't you been arguing in the past that people shouldn't have to denounce people on "their side" when they act stupid or extreme, though? I seem to recall that coming up more than once over the past year and change.

Indeed, though I would draw a distinction between some shmuck who happens to share a few views with you and some shmuck who you have working on your campaign. I'm also probably in the minority in thinking that the
guilt by association" card has been overplayed. That being the case, one had better be prepared for it, not look like Dan Quayle caught in the headlights.

A bit of both, it would seem. She raised a good bit of cash and pimped his campaign tirelessly in her blog--even moving to CT to work on the campaign. No big deal there. But she also directed a video for them and drove the campain manager to Lamont's Colbert report appearance in New York. She's high enough on the food chain that his attempts to disavow her were somewhat suspect.

Given that information, I'd agree with that. Bad call.

(McCain)
But, as I've suspected all along, I think a lot of Democrats who have been saying for the last 8 years that McCain was a republican they could support will suddenly discover that he is just another "enemy".

A couple of comments here:

1) Obligatory cheap shot: as opposed to Republicans, who have been the very soul of magnanimity when it comes to Democratic presidents. You'd think Clinton singlehandedly brought about hell on earth to hear a lot of GOP'ers at the time talk.

2) More seriously, there is a difference between "could support" and "would support". McCain is someone who has my respect as a person, though that's faded somewhat in the last few years of Bush-ass-kissing and Falwell-kowtowing. That does not mean I would wholeheartedly support everything on his "to do" list, nor that I would refrain from working against his policies in some situations -- but it does mean that I would be dealing with someone whose positions are generally self-consistent and who has shown at least some ability to consider the option that he's wrong. That does get significant credit.

Basically, if McCain won I doubt you'd see remotely as many people demonizing him the way they do Bush (justifiably, IMO), and you wouldn't see people claiming that the American ideal has gone down the shitter. Then again, that might be because McCain wouldn't do things like justify torture, discard the Geneva Convention, set up his own personal star chambers, etc.

Would I vote for him in '08? Honestly, probably not -- there are too many things I disagree with him on -- but it would depend on who was running against him. On the other hand, if a Democrat in office were to nominate him as, oh, Secretary of Defense or something akin, I would not only agree with the nomination, but would probably write my Congresscritters urging them to as well.

TWL

Oddly, Lieberman always sounded like George Jessel to me.

1) Obligatory cheap shot: as opposed to Republicans, who have been the very soul of magnanimity when it comes to Democratic presidents. You'd think Clinton singlehandedly brought about hell on earth to hear a lot of GOP'ers at the time talk.

I didn't mean it as such. I'd feel the same way if there were some Democrat that many Republicans have been touting as someone they would vote for. Can't think of one at the moment, which one could just as easily interpret as a sign that Democrats are more open minded than republicans, if one were so inclined.

And I don't doubt your sincerity on the issue (but keep in mind I think you are about as typical a Democrat as I am a Republican. For better or worse.). However--and this is a big however--I honestly beilieve that what has made McCain so appealing to many of the Democrats that supported him was the perception that he was a victim of GW Bush and someone who disliked Bush almost as much as they did. When that is no longer an issue they will discover that McCain is just another of those crazy right wing intolerant neo-nazi jackbooted Christianist Constitution shredders (Whew!). Or something like that.

And I have no doubt that whoever gets the nod from the Democrats will get very similar treatment, but unless it's Zell Miller it won't be anyone that a lot of Republicans have praised to the heavens.

I think it will take more than one election cycle to get things back on a less poisonous track (if they ever do). Can't say that lamont's candidacy points to a more civil future but it worked and I can hardly blame Democrats for wanting to se a few checks in the win column at this point. Whether a full embrace of the take no prisoners approach is the wisest tactic in the long run is debatable--I could see it blowing up big time by 2008.

I didn't mean it as such. I'd feel the same way if there were some Democrat that many Republicans have been touting as someone they would vote for.

Fair 'nuff.

And I can think of one Republican who I honestly might see myself supporting for national office if he ran -- Mike Bloomberg, current NY mayor. He seems to get it.

And I have no doubt that whoever gets the nod from the Democrats will get very similar treatment, but unless it's Zell Miller it won't be anyone that a lot of Republicans have praised to the heavens.

And if it's Zell, those same heavens are likely to open up. :-)

TWL

Hey, can the "other, nicer Bill" still play?

(Hey, that's what Bill Mulligan called me, OK?)

Look, no one is more disappointed than I to watch John McCain peddling his backside to those ultra-radical right-wing forces he has criticized out of conviction in the past. The fact remains, however, that McCain will have to appeal first to the ultra-conservative base of the Republican party in order to win the nomination. Afterwards, I think we'll see him scrambling back to moderation-ville.

Democratic candidates for president have to do much the same thing: appeal to the ultra-left to win the nomination, and then shift to more moderate positions to win the general election.

It would be nice if candidates from both the Democratic and Republican parties could keep their hands spotlessly clean, but politics has always and will always be messy. I think it would be a shame if McCain lost votes for doing what any presidential candidate, Republican or Democratic, has to do these days.

I'd love to see the system change, but until it does, I don't want to turn my nose up at a quality candidate because he or she is doing what he or she must.

I mean, remember the last election? Kerry vs. Dubya? What a crappy choice that was. McCain would, in my view, be a refreshing change.

And Mr. Mulligan, I disagree with the implication that we are seeing "the real John McCain" coming out, in all his conservative glory. I think the John McCain who is cozying up to Dubya and Jerry "Neither Moral Nor in the Majority" Falwell is the facade. The real McCain, the maverick who broke with GOP ranks on principle, is the true McCain, and I think we'll see him back after the primaries are over.

Yeah, McCain is a true conservative. That's why I, a liberal, like him so much -- he's a man of principle. Dubya, Falwell, and their ilk are demagogues and hypocrites, not true conservatives.

So, no, I didn't like McCain because he seemed like a victim of Dubya. I like him because in the past he's made principled stands despite the potential political consequences. And he's willing to reach out across the aisle and be a "uniter, not a divider" in deed, as opposed to Dubya, who is only a "uniter" in his rhetoric.

I don't know why I'm going to address Anonymous Internet Jerk's statements because if his handle didn't already do it, his statements make it clear that the only opinion he respects is his own. But of late I've lost my taste for the coarsing of the political debate in this country. Much to my embarrassment, I admit to having allowed myself to get drawn into such "screaming" matches before. Maybe it is the Lexapro, but lately, I've been hoping in vain for some intelligent political discourse. Instead, I see people like "AIJ" all over the web these days.

Sigh.

The first fallacy he commits is taking signs and statements by obvious extremists and trying to imply that all liberals hold anti-semitic views. And he goes further tells Jews that they shouldn't be liberals because liberals hate them. Oddly enough, this attitude of "Everyone who oppose this view (in this case, support for Israel) is automatically racist/sexist/anti-semitic etc" and "You people in racial/ethnic/religious group X shouldn't join with political group Y because they secretly hate" is exactly the kind of racial politically the republicans USED to condemn democrats for engagin in. Now I see the "race card" used very frequently to shut any criticism of Condi Rice as another example.

His second fallacy is something I've seen conservative bloggers and message board postings commit a lot this week: treat a poll taken this week as if those numbers are frozen in stone and declaring Lieberman the winner three months in advance. Again, ironically, it's often the same people who dismiss polls showing Bush at a dismal approval rating as the product of liberal conspiracy who are taking this one poll in the CT senate race as the final word on the outcome. Reminder all those exit polls from the 2004 race that were derided because they predicted a Kerry win? But this poll is "gospel", right?

Polls shift all the time and to use one to predict an election three months from now is a major fallacy.

One question I'd like some to ask Lieberman between now and November is, "given what's happened, you are reelected, will you still caucus with the democrats or join the republican caucus." I think his answer to that question will be very enlightening to the voters of CT.

No, I was thinking more of the Lieberman in blackface crap that Jane Hamsher, one of Lamont's major backers, ran.

I saw that and wondered what the hell she was thinking. What was the point? To portray Lieberman as a poser? Or just to be insulting for its own sake?

It was an idiotic thing to do and if he hasn't already, Lamont should put as much distance from her as possible and make it clear her "help" isn't welcome.

Something similar happened in the governor's primary race for the GOP in PA (such as it was, since everyone but Lynn Swann was eventually forced out of the race before the election was even held). The campaign manager of one of the candidates called Lynn Swann the "real rich white guy of this race". (For those of you who aren't football fans, Lynn Swann is black). He was fired the next day.

As for McCain, I think I've said it before here that I vote more on who I think will do a better job than ideology, which is why Bush has never gotten my vote. That McCain is a "true conservative" was never a real mystery for those who were paying attention. I agree with Bill Myers that his brand of conservatism is much more sincere than the "compassionate conservatism" or "neocon" or whatever it's called this week that Bush espouses. So, on that level, I can respect him. He has held strong to what he believes in, even when it bucked his own party's position.

That he's sucking up to the likes of Falwell sickens me, as it would if anyone did it. But I also understand that he does have to build up his conservative "cred" in order to win the nomination. Sad, but that's politics.

Would I vote for him? Possibly. At this point, I can honestly say that my vote in 2008 is completely up for grabs. I'll have to see who ultimately gets the nomination from both parties.

I doubt we'd see a McCain/Lieberman ticket. That kind of party jumping only happens in the movies.

Just a few corrections here...

"We ARE at war though. The war started well before George Bush became President."

A minority of dangerous lunatics committing criminal acts don't constitute a "war," no matter how atrocious those acts were. If that were the case, then we're also at "war" against white supremacist "Christian" fundamentalists, because they blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

"We displayed our vulnerability by failing to meaningfully respond when the Kobar towers were destroyed, when the US Cole was attacked."

There was no failure to respond in those instances. The attackers who were *directly* involved (those that didn't "martyr" themselves in the process, at least) were rounded up and brought to justice -- in a few cases, "justice" came with the swing of whatever it is the Saudis use to relieve a man from the burden of his own head.

"Bombing an aspirin factory and a few tents made us look weak and innefectual"

Nothing has ever been presented to back up the "aspirin factory" claim. The facility was targeted as a source for chemical weapons and was dealt with. Seems pretty effective to me.

Wildcat

And I can think of one Republican who I honestly might see myself supporting for national office if he ran -- Mike Bloomberg, current NY mayor. He seems to get it.

Hmmm...I haven't been too impressed with Bloomberg but my exposure has been admitedly limited. I'm put off by the nannystate crap I see NYC going through when I visit--nobody is more anti-smoking than I am, hate the filthy things, but the antismoking measures Bloomberg pushed though seem nuts to me. I'm not looking for a candidate who will EXPAND the "war on drugs"! But he may have other charms that elude me. I haven't seen much evidence that he is motivating Republicans to vote for him though. If any former mayor of NYC gets the nod I think his initials will be RG.

One question I'd like some to ask Lieberman between now and November is, "given what's happened, you are reelected, will you still caucus with the democrats or join the republican caucus." I think his answer to that question will be very enlightening to the voters of CT.

Lieberman has said that he would still caucas with the Democrats. Now I wonder if that will stand should the party get aggressive in seeing Lamont elected. I would not be surprised to see the Democratic Party take an unofficial back seat if the poll numbers consistantly favor Lieberman.

BTW, if I were handicapping the 2008 race at this point I'd say that the past week has been a very very good one for Mitt Romney. he looked far more presidential during his press conference than the last 3 presidents ever did.

Tim Lynch,
"In short, either Lieberman is a rank opportunist
who'll turn on his own party to maintain his image as a 'moralist', or he honestly believes all the tripe he's been peddling. In the latter case, his opinions should put him in the Republican camp"

I tend to believe it is the latter. Despite voting the Democratic party line about about 90% of the time, I would welcome him with open arms. he is a far preferable Republican than Lincoln Chafee - and it's funny that HIS attempted purge by Republicans has been all but ignored.

"I'm overjoyed to see him lose"

So am I. You really don't appreciate a "moderate" when he disagrees with you, do you?

"The formation of his 'Connecticut for Lieberman' party once agin sees him putting his own agenda well ahead of the good of the party or the good of the country."

As Clinton did, when he allowed the country to go through the whole impeachment ordeal? Wouldn't an incumbent President Gore - free to run on the Clinton record - been more formidable in 2000?
By the way, Tim, you owe me $100 to the charity of my choice. July 1, 2006 has passed and there has been no military draft. I would like the donation made to ACTOR, please. Thank you.

Den: "I agree with Bill Myers..."

Okay, you don't want to say that too loudly. Bill Myers is a freakin' crackpot...

You really don't appreciate a "moderate" when he disagrees with you, do you?

Sigh. Clearly your willingness to read what I write is as strong as ever.

Lieberman is a special case, as I have said. It's not that he has occasionally or even frequently disagreed with me -- it's that he has crossed very significant lines on a regular basis, including the "criticizing the president harms the country" line. Lieberman could be agreeing with me 99% of the time -- but as soon as he equates dissent with near-treason, in my opinion he needs to be gone.

The formation of his 'Connecticut for Lieberman' party once agin sees him putting his own agenda well ahead of the good of the party or the good of the country.

As Clinton did

Psst.

Jerome.

CLINTON IS OUT OF OFFICE AND HAS BEEN FOR NEARLY SIX YEARS, YOU DOPE. HE'S NOT RELEVANT TO A DISCUSSION OF LIEBERMAN IN THE HERE-AND-NOW.

Boy, that felt better.

By the way, Tim, you owe me $100 to the charity of my choice.

I agree. It actually occurred to me a few days ago -- I was just waiting for us both to be in a political thread to publicly concede.

I may hold off on sending the donation until after Labor Day, as money is somewhat tight at present, but I will send it soon. Do you need me to send you a receipt, or will my word suffice?

TWL

If any former mayor of NYC gets the nod I think his initials will be RG.

As I've said many times before Rudy will never get the GOP nod.

Rudy Giuliani, the so-called America's Mayor. The Luntz crowd loved it when he conversed about 9/11, his whole rap about how the dead were 80 nationalities, "rich or poor, white or black..." One participant sounded like a movie ad: "Giuliani is inspirational, idealistic, and a visionary. I like him!" Another said, "He speaks with conviction...this man could sell meat to PETA." However, this was all before Luntz told them that Giuliani was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control. At that point, Luntz writes, "his support melted away like butter on a warm dinner roll." In other words, he flunked the GOP primary litmus tests.

And this was from a focus group conducted by a GOP organizer.

http://dickpolman.blogspot.com/

Lieberman has said that he would still caucas with the Democrats. Now I wonder if that will stand should the party get aggressive in seeing Lamont elected. I would not be surprised to see the Democratic Party take an unofficial back seat if the poll numbers consistantly favor Lieberman.

It will be interesting. Lieberman's decision to caucus with the dems will definitely make many democrats more comfortable with voting for him. I think Lieberman's campaign right now will hinge on whether he has enough cash on hand to stay in the race (reportedly, he had about $2 million in the bank at the end of the primary election).

BTW, if I were handicapping the 2008 race at this point I'd say that the past week has been a very very good one for Mitt Romney. he looked far more presidential during his press conference than the last 3 presidents ever did.

Romney does look pretty good right now. Here's what the focus groups had to say about him:

his Mormon religion was fine with the New Hampshire participants, but the Iowa folks, particularly the women, had a real problem with it.

So, his big handicap is going to be winning over midwestern and southern conservative Christians. Not that surprising.

As Clinton did, when he allowed the country to go through the whole impeachment ordeal?

Tim already broke the news that Clinton is out of office, so I'll just ask Jerome exactly how Clinton "allowed" the impeachment ordeal? It's not like he could have stopped it once the GOP were hellbent on finding any reason to impeach him. Yes, he got caught covering up an affair, but since the ultimate result was a failure to conclude that this was an offense worthy of removal from office, I'd say it was the GOP who put us through the ordeal that turned out to be a huge was of time and money.

What Clinton did was indefensible, but did people seriously think that it was serious enough to remove him from office?

Sigh.

What I wouldn't give for a return to the days when our biggest problem was a stained dress.

By the way, it occurred to me that some people reading may have no idea what the bet is that Jerome and I are settling. Jerome's post made the basics of it quite clear, but in case anybody who wasn't around at the time wants to read the thread, go to

http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/002292.html

and start reading around 9:00 on the morning of December 7 for the specifics of the bet.

This is, of course, assuming anyone is actually interested. :-)

TWL

Clinton allowed it by not resigning as soon as it all started. Y'know, because his marital infidelity affected his ability to be the president. So much.

Lieberman is a special case, as I have said.

And, as I recall, you had some personal dealings with the guy that left a bad taste in your mouth. That's significant--a politician can be 100% on my side on every issue there is but if he cuts in front of my mom in an airport line he's dirt in my book.

CLINTON IS OUT OF OFFICE AND HAS BEEN FOR NEARLY SIX YEARS, YOU DOPE. HE'S NOT RELEVANT TO A DISCUSSION OF LIEBERMAN IN THE HERE-AND-NOW.

Now to be fair, before someone else points it out, PAD himself brought Billy C into the discussion.

By the way, Tim, you owe me $100 to the charity of my choice.

I agree. It actually occurred to me a few days ago -- I was just waiting for us both to be in a political thread to publicly concede.

You are, sir, an honerable gentleman.

What I wouldn't give for a return to the days when our biggest problem was a stained dress.

It wasn't our biggest problem--it was just the one we focused on. We are a reactive species, it's only what faces us in the here and now that concerns us in the slightest.

But I see your point; one of the possible reasons to vote for Hillary is to have Bill back in the spotlight. Can you imagine what sort of mischief he'll be getting into as First Man?

Actually, Bill, I'd call that a reason not to vote for Hillary. What Clinton's legion of detractors have always failed to understand is that he is a classic narcissist. He craves the spotlight more than anything else. Everytime a consverative pundit or blogger brings him up, he smiles, because it keeps him in the news. If the conservatives really wanted to punish him, they should vow never to talk about him in public again.

And in fairness to PAD, his first mention of Clinton was in reaction to garyb making the comment about just bombing a few tents and an aspiran encouraged Al Qaida. He didn't mention Clinton by name, but it was a clear shot him.

Den, true on both counts.

In case anyone missed the story, a "senior British official" reportedly told NBC news that the U.S. put pressure on Britain to speed up rather than delay the arrests of the would-be plane blower-uppers. Here's a link to an article on MSNBC about that very subject:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

If true, that cuts the legs out from under the idea that Dubya deliberately delayed the arrests in order to manipulate the results of Connecticut's Democratic primary vote last week.

That jibes with an article I saw the other said that said that one major difference between UK and US investigators it that the UK investigators are more patient for long term surveillance while the US counterparts want more immediate arrests.

I never understood the Bush delayed the announcement argument. If Bush did want to help Lieberman pushing for the arrests before the primary would have made more sense.

Posted by Bill Myers at August 11, 2006 04:54 PM

Den, you're right, divisive behavior has increased over the past five years (although, I would blame the nut-bags on the radio more than message boards), but I assure you, my path is quite clear and quite light.

Actions speak louder -- and mean more, in many cases -- than words. Since we're using "The Dark Side" as a metaphor in this instance for engaging in divisive and unproductive rhetorical tactics, you are in fact treading "The Dark Side." You can declare you're not until you're blue in the face, but it's like asserting that a circle is a square; you can repeat the falsehood to your heart's content, but the circle will remain a square and reality will remain unbudged.

Good sir, if engaging in “divisive and unproductive rhetorical tactics” is tantamount to engaging in the Dark Side, then I would suggest you take a mirror to PAD’s dear old site, which vacillates between rightful self-promotion and Bush bashing. My point, however poorly conceived, written or received, was to point out that while the world was getting a reminder that danger far beyond that of a mere common criminal element exists, PAD and his loyal self-styled politicking sycophants (who seem to thrill at finding square into circle examples of how Bush stole this, schemed to do that or conspired to attack whoever) were talking about how Lieberman was tainted by his shared beliefs with Bush. Golly, how insightful and productive that is!

And before the ole, “how sad is it that you’re swinging by to point this out” card gets played, again, let me just say that on some level I respect PAD as a successful writer, and am therefore – when extremely bored – occasionally curious as to how he conducts himself with his fans, especially in this day and age when it is getting increasingly harder to separate the creator’s product from the creator’s political viewpoints. Sometimes I can laugh and move on, other times … I get irritated, and very, very rarely, I learn something or come away with an opinion more informed.

Bill Myers wrote (at August 14, 2006 11:03 AM ):
If true, that cuts the legs out from under the idea that Dubya deliberately delayed the arrests in order to manipulate the results of Connecticut's Democratic primary vote last week.

Does it?

Because I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, I tend to assume that fear of a slip-up that would let these people succeed in their plot is a more likely motivation for Bush's alleged pressure to hurry things up than any plan to manipulate elections. On the other hand, those people who believed that he'd delayed things for that reason are likely to point to this as proof that he manipulated the timing for purely political reasons, even if they were wrong about the direction in which he manipulated it, aren't they?

(Full disclosure: I'm a reluctant supporter of Bush's. I disagree with a good number of his policies, but in general, I'm closer to him politically than I am to, say, John Kerry, particularly on issues such as the War on Terror.)

Anonymous Internet Jerks: "Good sir, if engaging in “divisive and unproductive rhetorical tactics” is tantamount to engaging in the Dark Side, then I would suggest you take a mirror to PAD’s dear old site, which vacillates between rightful self-promotion and Bush bashing."

Well, you yourself said Peter's "self-promotion" is "rightful" (an assertion with which I agree wholeheartedly), so I don't see anything very "dark" about that.

As for "Bush-bashing," I would actually agree that, from time-to-time, Peter's political rhetoric can be a bit divisive. And I have expressed marked disagreement with his views on occasion.

Nevertheless, I think Peter could lay fair claim to the mantle of being "a uniter, not a divider" by virtue of the fact that he kindly gives us a forum within which to freely exchange ideas, even if those ideas are ones with which he passionately disagrees. Moreover, I have noticed that while Peter chimes in from time to time, and can be very blunt when he does so, he does not dominate the discussion even though he has every right to do so -- because this is his blog.

So, yeah, I'm looking in that mirror and I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

Anonymous Internet Jerks: "My point, however poorly conceived, written or received, was to point out that while the world was getting a reminder that danger far beyond that of a mere common criminal element exists, PAD and his loyal self-styled politicking sycophants (who seem to thrill at finding square into circle examples of how Bush stole this, schemed to do that or conspired to attack whoever) were talking about how Lieberman was tainted by his shared beliefs with Bush. Golly, how insightful and productive that is!"

Den, Tim Lynch, Bill Mulligan, Iowa Jim, myself and others (sorry, didn't have time to cull through every post -- no slight intended to anyone I had to shoehorn into the "others" category) all rejected that particular conspiracy theory. Hell, I just posted a link to an article that debunks it.

Moreover, Den, Tim, and Bill Mulligan in particular took the discussion into more thoughtful and productive directions.

You seem to be dwelling only on those posters that support your distorted view of these discussions, while ignoring the diversity of views represented here. Rather than patting yourself on the back for being a bit better than the worst, wouldn't it be better to aim for a higher standard?

Anonymous Internet Jerks: "And before the ole, “how sad is it that you’re swinging by to point this out” card gets played, again, let me just say that on some level I respect PAD as a successful writer, and am therefore – when extremely bored – occasionally curious as to how he conducts himself with his fans, especially in this day and age when it is getting increasingly harder to separate the creator’s product from the creator’s political viewpoints. Sometimes I can laugh and move on, other times … I get irritated, and very, very rarely, I learn something or come away with an opinion more informed."

Frankly, I don't care why you swing by. It's not my blog and I don't call the shots. But I'd like to suggest that telling yourself and us that you're better than some of the more irrational posters in this forum is, to quote Dennis Miller, akin to "being the Valedictorian in summer school."

Robin S.: "On the other hand, those people who believed that he'd delayed things for that reason are likely to point to this as proof that he manipulated the timing for purely political reasons, even if they were wrong about the direction in which he manipulated it, aren't they?"

Very true. But, if you accept the premise that timing the arrests to occur after the Connecticut primary hurt Lieberman, then it stands to reason that timing them sooner would have helped him. I'm not sure I buy into either premise myself, but am just trying to examine them logically.

Anyway, my statement wasn't really concerned with how the conspiracy theorists would perceive this latest fact. I was pointing out that it invalidates their argument from a purely logical standpoint, whether they choose to accept that or not.

Robin S.: "(Full disclosure: I'm a reluctant supporter of Bush's. I disagree with a good number of his policies, but in general, I'm closer to him politically than I am to, say, John Kerry, particularly on issues such as the War on Terror.)"

Full disclosure: That would put you and I in disagreement more often than not. But you're obviously an intelligent person, and even if I disagree with your views, I admire the thoughtful and articulate way in which you express yourself.

Lieberman is a special case, as I have said.

And, as I recall, you had some personal dealings with the guy that left a bad taste in your mouth.

Not quite, or at least not directly. He and my dad were at Yale together (and only a year apart, so there was plenty of overlap), and my dad remembers him as being something of a sanctimonious dick even then ... but that's about it, to the best of my memory. Certainly no personal dealings on my own account -- my intense dislike of him is purely political.

My mom lives in CT and is thus one of Lieberman's alleged constituents. If anything, she dislikes him even more than I do -- she was driving Lamont voters to the polls.

TWL

"But, if you accept the premise that timing the arrests to occur after the Connecticut primary hurt Lieberman, then it stands to reason that timing them sooner would have helped him."

And if you subscribe to the theory that timing the arrests right after Lamont's victory was known -- to provide emphasis for the Administration's "the Democrats are soft on terror" spin -- then it works perfectly. Just look at the comments Tony Snow and Dick Cheney were making about Lamont last Wednesday, for instance. If the Bush Administration had no political incentive to manipulate the timing of the raid, then why not just sit back and let British authorities do the job on their timetable? Why put pressure at all?

(And the Bush Administration has lots of incentive to help Lieberman; he is, after all, the classic definition of a "useful idiot".)

--R.J.

But Robert, the problem is, the rhetoric by Snow and Cheney works whether or not the timetable was actually manipulated by the Bush administration. They knew the arrest were coming. Snow even hinted at it. Therefore, their comments could simply be a prelude of the political to come. The problem with the manipulation argument is that their rhetoric against Lamont fits their overall strategy against the democrats in general whether the arrests occured before or after the CT primary.

Golly, how insightful and productive that is!

The problem, AIJ, is that you're coming across not as "this is what I believe and why", but as "this is what I believe and if you disagree you're stupid." How insightful and productive is that attitude?

BTW, if the most recent polls are any indication, the majority of Americans are no longer buying the "only we republicans can protect you from terrorists" line from Bush administration.

And finally, the "reminder" you brought up has nothing to do to with support for the invasion of Iraq. In case you've forgotten, our original reason for invading that country was about getting the mythical WMDs, not 9/11 or Al Qaida. I know, the justification has changed so many times since then, it's hard to keep track. But my point is, one can actually be in favor of protecting the country from terrorists and still realize that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea poorly executed and has done nothing to increase the security of our nation.

Robert Jung: And if you subscribe to the theory that timing the arrests right after Lamont's victory was known -- to provide emphasis for the Administration's "the Democrats are soft on terror" spin -- then it works perfectly."

No, it doesn't. Because there's another, more plausible explanation: that the U.S. Government has gotten quite edgy about these things, given the miscues that prevented our intelligence and law enforcement officials from preventing the September 11, 2001 attacks.

And frankly, given that these terrorists were poised to try a dry run to see if they could smuggle the necessary materials aboard a plane, I think the U.S. officials were justified in wanting to bring the hammer down sooner, rather than later.

I don't like, nor do I respect, George W. Bush. That doesn't mean I have to impute ill motives for every action he takes. Especially in this instance, where your argument uses its own conjecture as proof, a logical fallacy known as "begging the question."

the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea poorly executed

Folks should be reminded that there are TWO ideas presented here. Some people tend to lump them together.

I'd like to suggest that telling yourself and us that you're better than some of the more irrational posters in this forum is, to quote Dennis Miller, akin to "being the Valedictorian in summer school."

heh!

If the Bush Administration had no political incentive to manipulate the timing of the raid, then why not just sit back and let British authorities do the job on their timetable? Why put pressure at all?

Because imagine if the british were wrong about the date by just a few days...imagine more people killed than on 9/11, the airline industry virtually destroyed, and imagine it comes out that Bush and co knew about it and did nothing. Would you have sat there and said "Thank God he didn't inject politics into a Birtish police investigation!" Good call!" Hell, I'd have been right there with you holding the rope with which to string him up (Note to any Secret Service men reading this--I'm being metaphorical).

As it was, arresting them just 5 days to the planned even was cutting it very close. If anything does happen on the 16th, if, God forbid, one of them managed to avoid identification and carries out his mission don't you think there will be justified critisism of Scotland yard for waiting too long?

As it was, arresting them just 5 days to the planned even was cutting it very close.

Actually, they were planning a dry run first, not the actual mission.

"If anything does happen on the 16th, if, God forbid, one of them managed to avoid identification and carries out his mission don't you think there will be justified critisism of Scotland yard for waiting too long?"

No, because the mistake would not have been in waiting too long. From what I've read, the Brits were delaying gathering these guys up for the explicit reason of identifying the maximum number of people connected with them before arrests made everyone go to ground. If, God forbid, somebody managed to escape detection and smuggle something deadly onto a plane, then maybe the Brits would be due critism for making some type of major mistake...but it wouldn't be waiting too long. Waiting more would have increased the chances of identifying more of the suspects.

Of course, it would also increase the chances of the suspects pulling something off. Hence the US Administration's desire to speed up the arrest. I think what we're seeing here is a lessor tolerance for the risks involved in a terrorist attack as well as the U.S. standing to suffer higher losses should those risks go the wrong way (in the POV of the U.S. at least).

Cheney's "Democrats soft of terror" type comments were likely made to capitalize on the political effects of the arrests, but I don't believe that politcal gain was the primary goal of the U.S. trying to speed up the arrests. I am going to give even the current U.S. Administration (whom I depise) the benefit of the doubt and believe that protecting thousands of American lives from a terrorist attack was MORE important than protecting the Republican Party from the consequences of such an attack. Note: I'm saying the politics were LESS important than protecting thousands of Americans, not that the politics were UNimportant. These guys are political animals in political jobs. Everything they do has political consequences and I have no doubt that there is a host of people reporting to Karl Rove whose sole job is to divine what the political consequences of their actions are.

Robert, it doesn't take very much to convince me that the current administration is doing something solely for sleazy political reasons, and even I'm not convinced in this case.

What I think is sleazy is that Cheney/Snow/etc. made all of the statements they did KNOWING that the arrests were coming. It's basically using inside information to score political points -- almost the political equivalent of insider trading. I think that's a somewhat disgusting political tactic, and one worthy of scorn -- but it's nowhere near the conspiracy you're discussing.

As many others have said, there's such a lengthy list of things the administration can most definitely be condemned for that I don't see a need to stretch this particular point. If anything, it might wind up making the other criticisms look questionable as well, and I certainly don't want that.

TWL

What I think is sleazy is that Cheney/Snow/etc. made all of the statements they did KNOWING that the arrests were coming.

Exactly. Why manipulate events when you have the inside dope that lets you define the debate before your opponents can even react?

In some ways, the administration is the victim of their own past tactics. They've been exposed for being secretic and manipulative so many times in the past, that people will believe them capable of anything.

Couldn't you, for the sake of arguement, call Snow and Cheney's arguements, I don't know, treasonous? Think about it. The Veep says something aluding to current operations against terror. One of these guys in England catches wind, they all go underground for three or four months, then come up with something WORSE to do on airplanes. You should never let the enemy know what you know. (insert cheap shot about anybody you like in government HERE)

Couldn't you, for the sake of arguement, call Snow and Cheney's arguements, I don't know, treasonous?

I've seen dumber arguments. But the fact that nobody here has reprwented those statements suggests that there is far less to them than it would take to rise to the level of "treason". A biref perusal of the web only gives me the following: The vice president suggested that Lamont's victory might encourage ``the al-Qaida types'' who want to ``break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.''

He portrayed the Democratic Party as preferring that the United States ``retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home.''

Unless we are now fighting terrorist mind readers I don't think you can argue that Cheney was risking a tip off. But as I said, there are dumber arguments out there.

I also think that Karl Rove is PRAYING that Democrats begin to claim that Cheney's statements are treason, for the reasons that Tim mentioned above. The more the crazy charges are thrown out there the less likely tha