Replies: 44 Comments
Comment #1: cali said on 8/9/06 @ 1:42pm ET...
the democrats need to make this clear
Sixty percent of AMERICANS oppose Iraq war. NOT only the democrats.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/08/09/sixty_percent_of_americans_oppose_iraq_war_poll/
Jim Hightower always warning about well ahead of his time: "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
Comment #2: koryannder said on 8/9/06 @ 2:10pm ET...
#1 cali - as near as I can determine, the Public always was against this war. It was sold to us on a tissue of lies and an invitation to be afraid, and a lot of us caved in on that account. Lieberman always was on the wrong page, and was doomed to be defeated as soon as his name came up. Only his own hubris kept him afloat as long as it did; it could not have been comfortable, being GWB's favorite Democrat. The point to remember is that he was the standard bearer for the miscalled Democratic Leadership Council, whose main claim to fame is the cockamamie belief that you can beat Republicans by pretending to BE Republicans, which nonsense turns real Democrats off and causes them not to go to the polls. By now, many Americans recognize that the DLC is a gaggle of losers, and are ceasing to listen to them at all, which is a good thing for the country. Now, Lieberman should take his pension and shut up, or even lend support to Lamont. After all, the object is to retain a Democratic seat in Congress, and if ol' Joe runs as an independent, he just might elect a Republican. But maybe he'd like to be remembered as the Nader of the Senate. He should recognize that if he could not win the primary, he has ZERO chance as an Indy, and can only waste a lot of money better spent on other races. The question boils down to, "Is Lieberman a Democrat, or a Republican?" To see the "Southern Strategy" rearing its ugly head in New England is repulsive, and all decent Democrats hope that Joe will take a deep breath and decide to sit this one out, before he loses any reputation for integrity he has left.
Comment #3: MAX 1 said on 8/9/06 @ 2:12pm ET...
Lieberman's run for Independent does more damage than it does anything for Joe to save face. While appearing desperate, Joe does not wish to let go of his political future and House seat, he's also creating and perpetuating the seemingly overused image that there is more divisiveness within the Democratic Party, and that the Democrats are not acting in unity.
I can see it now, Republican Pundits already infamous for their exaggerations of the Democratic unity, or sometime seemingly lack there-of, will once again breath life into their shrill of, "The Democrats don't know what they stand for, just look at the way they've split off to support Joe Lieberman." 'Common Ann, Sean, Rush, Michelle, Bill, Faux crew. I didn't just write your by line, it's free-bee, thanks to go-go-Joe.
Comment #4: tahoebasha1 said on 8/9/06 @ 2:19pm ET...
Well, Michael Moore never has a problem "telling it like it is." He has some thoughts on this subject -- I think well-founded, as well.
"Wednesday, August 9th, 2006
It's All About Who You Sleep With ... a Cautionary Note from Michael Moore
Friends,
Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war. . . . "
From Michael Moore
Comment #5: tahoebasha1 said on 8/9/06 @ 3:14pm ET...
" . . . .Was this an anti-war vote? Was this a vote against an out-of-touch incumbent? Was it a vote against the President or those who ally too closely with him? . . . ."
JC -- Personally, I think the answer to the above is: all three of those reasons.
American people are sick to death of this war and killing, killing, killing. I think Lieberman disgraced the Democrats by his "suckling" up to Bush -- and there are others, as well, but he is the extreme. And -- Democrats are not forgetting those in the Senate and Congress who have not stood up on behalf of democracy and have let us down.
I hope we will see the same "Lieberman" type results with a number of others in our mis-government.
Comment #6: Ron said on 8/9/06 @ 3:38pm ET...
Joe the snake was forced to reveal his true colors!
Joe lost because the American people are fed up with his kind of politics!
And now after loosing, he is showing his REAL face, by wanting to let the Repugnikan candidate win by splitting the dem. vote.
Private note to Joe, Go home and lick your wounds ,then grow up and help Ned get rid of his asshole opponent and win in November!
Comment #7: unspun said on 8/9/06 @ 4:23pm ET...
Amen, Congressman Conyers,
Joe Lieberman stopped listening to his constituents long ago. He even had the nerve to say that he "answers to a higher authority". That sounds so very noble, if you can disregard the fact that in a democracy you are elected to represent the voice of the citizens who elected you, not your own conscience. Mr. Lieberman has consistently pushed his own agenda, refusing to listen to the voters who elected him.
If Mr. Lieberman's conscience prohibited him from voting on issues as a true representative of the people, he should have done the honorable thing and stepped down. Instead he chose to stay, and tried to have it both ways, claiming to be a Democrat, but in fact, supporting the republicans. He apparently felt that throwing a few token votes to the democrats would hide the fact that he is solidly in the republican camp.
An honorable man would admit that over the years, his political beliefs have changed and he no longer can support the Democratic ideals. The party didn't leave Joe, Joe left the party.
Comment #8: okcitykid said on 8/9/06 @ 4:36pm ET...
Politicians are being bought by corporate lobbyists, Lieberman is an example of that. From the outside looking in it sometimes looks like the Republicans and Democrats are the same, they just speak differently.
The voters have spoken.
Comment #9: Citizen J said on 8/9/06 @ 6:04pm ET...
"An honorable man would admit that over the years, his political beliefs have changed and he no longer can support the Democratic ideals."
Exactly right. The HONORABLE man would've come to this conclusion LONG before he lost a primary in the party that he'd been a member of for more than 30 years. The HONORABLE man wouldn't try to have it both ways. The HONORABLE man would respect the voices of his constituents.
Clearly, Loserman is the furthest thing from an honorable man.
Good riddance to BAD RUBBISH.
Comment #10: Frosted Flake said on 8/9/06 @ 7:16pm ET...
"Was this an anti-war vote? Was this a vote against an out-of-touch incumbent? Was it a vote against the President or those who ally too closely with him?"
I am confused. I see no differance between these alleged specifics. I think folks are looking under the streetlamp for the quarter dropped in the dark ally. Because it's light here, not because the quarter is here. And that's just speaking of those looking because they don't know, not those hoping to distract people.
My take. "You can fool some of the People all of the time. You can fool all of the People some of the time. But you can't fool all of the People all of the time." Ned (because he WAS rich) was able to stand up and say one thing, "The War Is Wrong", and not just win, but also draw many more voters to the polls than usual.
This means, pardon the way this sounds, people are excited about Ned Lamont. Because he offers the pre 9/11 ethic. As in "Get a warrent!". As in "Press charges, or get off my butt." The reason we have a Constitution is simply that we may enjoy as right Freedom from unreasonable Government. And only that.
Ned offers us this. Joe puts forward pointless, permanant war as the moderate position. Moderate because of 9/11. But those Towers did not fall into thier own footprints on thier own, they needed a lot of help to do that. On thier own, they would have collapsed sequentially and asymetricly (ie, to the side, like a tree), not simutaneously and symetricly (ie straight down, like an elevator.) Every day we awake a bit further from that shocking day and the trauma it brought to all of us. Every day more of us recover from the shock and begin thinking rationaly again. Every day more of say to ourselves, "Wait a minute, that couldn't have happened that way by chance." And every day there are more of us against the war on terror, against politicians who are either clueless or complicit, and against the President and all who stand with him. These are not seperate possibilities, one of which swung this race. These are all minor symptoms of largest political reality there could ever be.
People are waking up. This has been going on since 9/11. Some of us woke up on day one, when the first tower failed to bring down the second with it's multi million ton impact, proving the second sound, and then the second suddenly collapsed anyway. And then the third. Contrary to physical law. People may be stupid, especially when in crowds, but they will eventually notice when the impossible happens three times on the same day. Many have noticed, and now enough of us are awake that we can win an election.
"And what does it mean for November."?
It means the race is not local, based on minutia. The race is national, based on issues of war, deceit, felony and the right of the People to control thier government. Those who are asking what the meaning is should be told as much.
The question that should be asked, but which a rightwing press will not, is how is it there remain any citizens who sleep, and what will awaken them?
That is an actually useful question. For Democrats, anyway.
Frosted Flake
Comment #11: Frosted Flake said on 8/9/06 @ 7:24pm ET...
Whoops, made a mistake.
On thier own, if they did collapse, they would have........and so on.
Comment #12: LeslieB said on 8/9/06 @ 7:42pm ET...
Dear Congressman Conyers,
Couldn't agree with you more. Lieberman is out of touch with Connecticut voters, out of touch with mainstream America who overwhelmingly disapprove of the Iraq war and Bush, and out of touch with the Democratic party. In fact, Lieberman is turning his back on the Democratic party by insisting on running as an Independent. Democrats should not support him. Lieberman ought to gracefully accept defeat and withdraw from the race. But I fear he won't, and that could be very divisive.
Comment #13: LeslieB said on 8/9/06 @ 7:54pm ET...
Wow, you won't believe this...GOP Chair Ken Mehlman doesn't support the Republican candidate for the US Senate in Connecticut. Mehlman supports Lieberman!? Because Bush supports Lieberman. Therefore Lieberman has become the Republican's candidate. Unbelievable. What does Lieberman stand for? How incredibly selfish of Lieberman to risk damaging the Democrats by not withdrawing from the race. The elections in November ought to be focused on defeating Bush and the GOP, not on Lieberman.
Chris Matthews's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Do you want Republicans in Connecticut to vote for the Republican candidate or do you want them to vote for Joe Lieberman, which one?
MEHLMAN: I'm letting Republicans in Connecticut make that decision.
Matthews asked Mehlman repeatedly if he supported the GOP candidate, and Mehlman refused to endorse him repeatedly.
Comment #14: trescott said on 8/9/06 @ 8:44pm ET...
Comment on Joe Lieberman:
From what I understand here is Joe Lieberman's view of Democratic voters.
If democrats vote for me they are on the righteous track.
If democrats vote against me they are flawed and need to be corrected to think like I do. Doesn't this sound like Bush's war policy?
Lieberman is exhibit A of what's wrong with the demcoratic pary (in my opinion).
This is a true disrespect to the will of democratic voters. The people that don't support the war should have there vote count.
Pleas don't run. Say it ain't so Joe.
Comment #15: trescott said on 8/9/06 @ 8:46pm ET...
#13
In Lieberman's opinion Ken Mehlman represents the ideals of the democratic party.
Comment #16: trescott said on 8/9/06 @ 8:57pm ET...
Frosted Flake #10
I like your quote. I don't think it could have been said better.
Comment #17: tahoebasha1 said on 8/9/06 @ 9:04pm ET...
#10 - FF
Thank you Frosted Flake(?).
You delved into the whole mess more than I, on my limited time, to explore and get to the bottom of the REAL crux of all that has been undermining our spirits to this day, as well as all the "aftermath."
I am not a scientist nor an engineer, but I am able to logic out the ill-logic that has been fed us since day one after 9/11.
I am not here to commence a dissertation on conspiracy theories, nor attempt to engage people here in such theories. But I will say this that there is sufficient evidence, from the standpoint of what is possible, or credible from an architectural/engineering and physics perspective, that there is no question that Americans were sold a "bill of goods" as to 9/11. An "in-house" job would have served their purposes to no end, as we now know.
The chilling moment of Bush learning that we were being attacked and his non-reactive, non-emotional response was probably a larger signal than we supposed.
And now, some 6 years later, with hundreds of thousands of "deaths," on many scales, people are finally beginning to get a REAL glimpse of these nefarious people who make up our government.
Comment #18: MAX 1 said on 8/10/06 @ 12:36am ET...
Joe LIEberman
He voiced his opinion against the war BEFORE he supported it.
Comment #19: MAX 1 said on 8/10/06 @ 12:54am ET...
Off topic...
Congressman Conyers,
I'm rather concerned about the latest attempt by this Administration to rid itself of any responsibility for their High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution
Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.
The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.
...
U.S. officials have long interpreted the War Crimes Act as applying to civilians, including CIA officers, and former U.S. military personnel. Misconduct by serving military personnel is handled by military courts, which enforce a prohibition on cruelty and mistreatment. The Army Field Manual, which is being revised, separately bars cruel and degrading treatment, corporal punishment, assault, and sensory deprivation.
Common Article 3 is considered the universal minimum standard of treatment for civilian detainees in wartime. It requires that they be treated humanely and bars "violence to life and person," including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It further prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity" such as "humiliating and degrading treatment." And it prohibits sentencing or execution by courts that fail to provide "all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.
...
The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, however, that the administration's policy of not honoring the Geneva Conventions was illegal, and that prisoners in the fight against al-Qaeda are entitled to such protections.
U.S. officials have since responded in three ways: They have asked Congress to pass legislation blocking the prisoners' right to sue for the enforcement of those protections. They have drafted legislation allowing the consideration of intelligence-gathering needs during interrogations, in place of an absolute human rights standard.
They also formulated the War Crimes Act amendments spelling out some serious crimes and omitting altogether some that U.S. officials describe as less serious. For example, two acts considered under international law as constituting "outrages" -- rape and sexual abuse -- are listed as prosecutable.
...
This viewpoint appears to have won over the top uniformed military lawyers, who have criticized other aspects of the administration's detainee policy but said that they support the thrust of these amendments. Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the Army's judge advocate general, said in testimony that the changes can "elevate" the War Crimes Act "from an aspiration to an instrument" by defining offenses that can be prosecuted instead of endorsing "the ideals of the laws of war."
Lawyer David Rivkin, formerly on the staff of the Justice Department and the White House counsel's office, said "it's not a question of being stingy but coming up with a well-defined statutory scheme that would withstand constitutional challenges and would lead to successful prosecutions." Former Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo similarly said that U.S. soldiers and agents should "not be beholden to the definition of vague words by international or foreign courts, who often pursue nakedly political agendas at odds with the United States."
But Corn, the Army's former legal expert, said that Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, "left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects." Eugene R. Fidell, president of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice, said that laws governing military conduct are filled with broadly described prohibitions that are nonetheless enforceable, including "dereliction of duty," "maltreatment" and "conduct unbecoming an officer."
Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is "don't trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions."
One could conclude that the Administration is attempting to buffer itself from any hopes OF prosecution from an international War Crimes Tribunal. Since the Administration does know that the War Crimes Act only affects civilians and officials, and seeing that individuals within the Administration that are employed at the top ARE civilians and elected Officials and not enlisted military personnel, there seems to be a concerted effort to shield and protect themselves.
Q U E S T I O N:Why would the Administration attempt to regulate very specific laws that pertain to themselves
IF they've done nothing wrong in the first place?
Comment #20: Frosted Flake said on 8/10/06 @ 1:32am ET...
§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b),
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
Comment #21: Frosted Flake said on 8/10/06 @ 2:02am ET...
§ 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b),
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
This is the law specifying the jurisdiction of our Courts in cases of war crime. You will note that it is slightly differant from what is described in the story. You will note that it subjects foriegn nationals to our Courts jurisdiction. And that it applies soldiers just the same as anyone else. It's right there in the bond.
Damn fair too, I have to admire. Same standard whether our guy is the victim or the perp.
Comment #22: bill_o_carolina said on 8/10/06 @ 2:37am ET...
Please check this out and tell us what you think.
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/14211/index.php
Comment #23: MAX 1 said on 8/10/06 @ 3:19am ET...
War Crimes and Responsibility of the Bush Administration
History repeats itself for those that fail to learn from the past lessons that it teaches us. When will the Leaders of our world begin to learn from the histories that they create for themselves? This IS why American Foreign Policy creates radical groups that strike AT the USA and USA identified targets. According to the US DoD, this "BLOWBACK" is calculated into that history that is created. Therefore, America CAN expect another 9/11 brought to us by the Administration that encourages militant organizations to fester and populate around the world BECAUSE of the mitigated "BLOWBACK" built into the foreign policy.
Ahhh, HELLO????
A failed foreign policy yields bad results. NO???
Comment #24: koryannder said on 8/10/06 @ 7:06am ET...
For # 14 Trescott. I had long suspected that something was amiss in the Democratic Party - but recent events have finally shown it for what it is. The "Democratic Leadership Council," (DLC) is actually an arm of the Republican Party! A gang of traitors to the ideals of the Party put in place over a period of time by "Financiers" such as Felix Rohatyn, who pretend to be Democrats, but whose impact is FASCISTIC. They have infiltrated the party and stolen a number of Congressional and Senatorial seats, by maintaining that the way to win elections is to be "Conservative." In other words, don't be (horrors!) "Liberal." Unfortunately, their treason has been rewarded. The 80% of the PEOPLE whom the real Democrats such as JC represent are turned off by the evident hypocrisy of a "Democrat" who sounds like a Republican, so they stay home on election day and let the Quislings and mealy-mouthed traitors fight it out. It is now out in the open, with the defeat of Joe Lieberman, a leading light in the DLC. He's NO DEMOCRAT! Any Registered Democrat who votes for Joe as an "Independent" is ACTUALLY voting for the Republican! I hope Lamont makes that point VERY CLEAR. I also hope that the Democratic Party wakes up and boots the miscalled DLC out on its collective fundament, and returns to FDR principles, which the DLC was founded to destroy, and has largely succeeded. The economy of the Nation has been outsourced and globalized at the same time as an unwinnable war and an unpayable debt have been foisted upon us. Rohatyn and the other Synarchists wish to preside over the destruction of the United States as a viable Nation. The step from "Superpower" to third world status is perilously close. If we do not act SOON to implement the Bohnsack plan, we can kiss our world leadership role goodbye.
Comment #25: koryannder said on 8/10/06 @ 7:23am ET...
For #22 bill_o_carolina (I am also a Carolingian) - yes, the seismic data constitute the "Smoking Gun," and validate Rodriguez' testimony. As you know, Rodriguez has brought suit to uncover the ghastly mess that has been brought about by the false flag act of synthetic terror that occurred on 9/11/01. Whether the suit is allowed to come to trial or not depends largely on who the judge may be. Stanley Hilton's suit was quashed by a Republican judge - and there are those who wonder just what the Republican Party is composed of. Its evident desire NOT to get to the bottom of what actually happened on 9/11 is evidence either of duplicity, criminal conspiracy, wilful blindness, or elemental stupidity. Anyone who follows Bu$h blindly into another unwinnable war is, almost by definition, either a traitor, a war criminal, or a damned fool. There are no other choices. 9/11 should be our rallying cry - it was an act of treachery committed by domestic traitors. Bu$h acted like he knew it, or else why did he act so precipitously to protect the bin Laden family, and why did the army prevent the capture of Osama himself when he was cornered? The whole thing ties together - but IF the Public ever woke up to what actually happened on that day, the Republicans would not elect a dog-catcher for the next generation! Not that ALL the Republicans knew about the controlled demolition of the three buildings in the WTC, but it is evident that they have acted in concert to keep the truth from being known; they have circled their wagons to protect the guilty, and for that reason alone are eminently deserving of removal from office.
Comment #26: wayne said on 8/10/06 @ 11:29am ET...
I have copies of the seismographs posted on my wall behind my computer screen. Posted right next to it are graphs of underground explosions. Funny thing is they match in two distinct ways.
For one the initial spikes (release of energy into the ground) are greater then the potential energy of the buildings coming down.
Second distinction is that the energy release (spike) occurs at the beginning of the sequence, seconds before the total collapse ensued.
So how does a building "officially" falling only because its own mass exert more energy while still standing then when it collides with the ground?
Comment #27: Nolip said on 8/10/06 @ 11:35am ET...
The recent events reported in the news regarding the terrorist plot that was intercepted by officials begs the question "Did this really happen"? The other question it begs is "How much more of the "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" message that this administration is driving home will the people take before they tell BushCo to take a hike?
Comment #28: tahoebasha1 said on 8/10/06 @ 12:51pm ET...
It's just plain amazing, isn't it? Here we go again! The timely fear-mongering strikes again.
Comment #29: tahoebasha1 said on 8/10/06 @ 2:13pm ET...
Never let it be said that the Repugs aren't expert when it comes to exploiting any situation they can to their advantage -- they don't miss a trick! Lieberman's predicament is the latest:
"Lieberman loss ripples across U.S.
Democrats rally around Lamont; GOP senses opportunity
By Jeff Zeleny
Washington Bureau
Published August 10, 2006
" . . . .'My mind is made up,' Lieberman said. 'I'm going forward because I'm fed up with all the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting anything done.'
Cheney rushes into fray
Republicans seized on Lieberman's predicament, dispatching Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials to pit Lamont and his backers against moderate Democrats. Not only did it create a curious political dynamic, it provided the GOP a new opportunity to caricature Democrats as weak on security and espousing what Cheney called 'a pre-9/11 mindset.'
'It's an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party,' Cheney said, 'to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy.' . . . ."
* * *Cheney at his nauseating best.
see
http://www.chicagotribune.com
Search: Jeff Zeleny
Comment #30: Truth_in_action said on 8/10/06 @ 5:30pm ET...
#10, FF, #17 tahoe, MAX 1, Kory, and others, yesterday (8-9-06) Lou Dobbs discussed the new book by the 9/11 Commission co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton. In this book they discuss how the American people still do not have the answers to serious questions involving 9/11 and that the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration lied about their testimony.
Say WHAT???
Please, everyone, take a moment and read this excerpt from the Lou Dobbs Tonight transcript about this book and Lou Dobbs' reaction to it. I'm providing this critical portion of the interview from the transcript. The link to the entire show transcript is below.
When you are done reading this transcript, I urge you to write to Lou Dobbs and beg, plead, ask nicely, however you feel yourself moved to request that he please continue to pursue the truth behind 9/11 and this Administration's connection.
Many thanks!
=======
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight, we're one month away from the fifth anniversary of September 11th. A shocking new book by the 9/11 Commission co- chairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, says Americans still don't know the whole truth about their government's initial response to those terrorist attacks that day.
Christine Romans has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Two hours of chaos and confusion on September 11th, and months of government ineptitude at incorrect testimony. A new book by 9/11 commission co- chairmen Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton outlines repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration.
They write, "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11. But it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue."
Untrue, the military's original timeline of United Flight 93. The military said FAA notified NORAD of a hijacked plane at 9:16 a.m., 47 minutes before the plane crashed in Pennsylvania. In fact, the military found out three minutes after the plane crashed. And equally untrue, the government's timeline for American Flight 77 and details about fighter jets scrambled to intercept it.
The book also alleges government officials weren't forthcoming with the investigation and it took interviews and subpoenas to shake loose valuable information.
A Pentagon audit declassified last year found "DOD did not accurately report to the 9/11 Commission on the response to the September 11th, 2001 hijackings." Pentagon investigators blamed "insufficient forensic capabilities" and worse. Admits, "DOD might not be able to sufficiently capture and report on actions taken in response to a future significant air event."
Still, so far government investigators stopped short of calling all these inaccuracies lies.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: Investigations are under way by the inspectors general of the Pentagon and the Department of Transportation to find out just why the FAA and NORAD didn't tell the truth.
Now, Kean and Hamilton say all the inaccuracies have fueled conspiracy theorists, they've stymied the investigation, and Lou, damaged the credibility of this government.
DOBBS: Well, this government doesn't deserve much credibility, does it? In point of fact, if all of the after-action reports are untrue, for whatever reason, that's a lie, because they were asserted as the truth by people who knew better or should have.
ROMANS: And really troubling, the Department of Defense's own inspector general report that was declassified showed that if the same thing happened again, you'd have the same chaos and the same misreporting or lies afterward.
DOBBS: Incompetence and ineptitude on the part of this government on September 11th and in the weeks and months leading up to it are established. The fact that the government would permit deception after a deception, whether honestly, if you can call it that, honestly intended or not. But the fact that they were continue and perpetuate the lie, suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on and what is demonstrably an incompetent and at worst deceitful federal government.
Christine Romans, thank you very much. Incredible.
=======
Link for transcript: Lou Dobbs Tonight transcript 8/9/06.
Write to Lou Dobbs one of two ways:
Email to Lou Dobbs: LouDobbs@cnn.com
Form mail to Lou Dobbs: Contact Lou Dobbs at CNN.
Comment #31: Rusty said on 8/10/06 @ 5:52pm ET...
Bush, Cheney, the entire Republican Party, and their pal Joe Lieberman are in dire need of psychiatric care.
Psychosis: A psychiatric classification for a mental state in which the perception of reality is distorted. There are other symptoms of psychosis, such as howling "the terrorists want to kill us" every five seconds and attending GOP fundraisers, but I won't trouble anyone with further gory details, we see the symptoms every day.
We've probably written a billion words on this blog about these people, but the bottom line is that Republicans belong in psychiatric hospitals. They are batshit insane.
Comment #32: Rusty said on 8/10/06 @ 6:04pm ET...
LOU DOBBS! LOU DOBBS! LOU DOBBS!
Thank you for posting #30, TIA!
Comment #33: unspun said on 8/10/06 @ 6:23pm ET...
Well, apparently it's "Time to Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" yet again.
Congressman Conyers, I am imploring you and the Democrats to counter the republicans using this latest "terrorist plot" for their political gain.
We all know the repubs have done very little to effectively increase security. The democrats must come out with their plans regarding countering terrorism. The democrats have to unrelentingly pound home the fact that: the republicans were in charge when 9/11 happened. The Democrats also must present a very short, very effective anti-terror plan to the American people, ASAP.
The irrefutable facts are:
1. 9/11/01 happened 9 months into BUSH's Watch. No matter how much he tries to pass the blame, he was in charge and failed to protect Americans.
2. Apparently it was the British who actually found out about this latest "plot". Details yet to come out.
3. Katrina and its aftermath happened again on Bush's watch, showing tremendous problems with our emergency response system. These problems have not been completely resolved to date.
4. Repeated security tests by various groups have found that there are still vulnerabilities in airport security.
SO, given all of the above, how exactly is it that the BUSH adm & mr loserman are making us safer?
I believe that we've just been very lucky.
Comment #34: unspun said on 8/10/06 @ 6:31pm ET...
Re: Mr. Loserman -
Republicans are Flip-Floppers. In 2000 they had nothing good to say about him.
Now he apparently is vital to the continuation of civilization as we know it.
So, they were against him before they were for him??
Comment #35: Truth_in_action said on 8/10/06 @ 6:33pm ET...
Off topic, but just a point of fact, as Lou Dobbs likes to say (down, Rusty! LOL).
Congressman Conyers, I would be extremely heartened if you would consider inviting Mr. Lou Dobbs to sit in as a panelist or as one of those guests who question panelists if you were to have another hearing such as the one you had for the Downing Street Minutes.
I'm not for every viewpoint Lou Dobbs has, and I admit I am with him wildly on many, but you've got to admire a man of the media who is not afraid to march to his own drum beat. A downright rarity to find.
Comment #36: Truth_in_action said on 8/10/06 @ 6:36pm ET...
On topic.
What can you call Lieberman BUT a Republican, when Cheney backhandedly endorses him, and Sean Hannity openly endorses him multiple times on his radio show AND has him on often as a guest?
Sorry, Joe, you can't play it both ways. People are not as dumb as you think they are, or perhaps, as the Republicans have told you they are.
Comment #37: Truth_in_action said on 8/10/06 @ 6:53pm ET...
Anybody else upset about how Google no longer brings up Congressman Conyers' blog when you do searches on your blog name?
The only occurrences that come up for my Truth_in_action name on Google are posts on the dccc.org blog. (The Truth_In_Action listings for the Astral Society is not me, btw.)
Could it be some kind of right wing hanky-panky?
Admin, any ideas? Would you like to contact Google on this issue? Someone is interferring for sure if in the past I used to be able to bring up all links - over 50 of them, and now zero links show for the JC Blog.
Comment #38: koryannder said on 8/10/06 @ 6:55pm ET...
everyone - watch Lou Dobbs' take on the destruction of the US.
www.uncledoan.com/loudobbs/
Verrrrry Interesting!
Comment #39: Nolip said on 8/10/06 @ 7:28pm ET...
The media reports, so Americans are supposed to listen, to yet another attempt on the part of home grown "terrorists" who are "in custody" who are now charged with despicable acts of terrorism, taking Gatorade on a plane. FOX News is selling this stuff quicker than the White House can manufacture it and its received as much hype as the day the Twin Towers fell, even though nothings happened so far except for the fact that a lot of airline travelers are inconvenienced with the CODE RED label on everything from their underwear to their fountain pens that they want to carry in their luggage.
If we wait a couple of days we'll probably learn that most of these home grown terrorists are probably grandmas from Hoboken New Jersey who were trying to go to a bake off but we're abducted by Homeland Security for trying to burn their cake on board a plane.
When will Congress finally step up to the plate and start holding hearings on this barrage of so called terrorists acts that somehow are leaked to the media, with so many faceless and nameless "terrorists" charged with these "crimes". This is propaganda like nothing we've seen since Hitler was in power.
Comment #40: Truth_in_action said on 8/10/06 @ 8:15pm ET...
CNN is reporting that Bush was aware the plotters were under surveillance, but was informed by Britain over the weekend that they were going to seize the suspects. How convenient that Bush would get so much notice so that all the talking points could line up like ducks in a row. Today some Rush Limbaugh sit-in kept saying he had "facts" and said over and over the suspects were al Qaida terrorists (from my memory - no transcript available). "Fact..." more propaganda completely unconfirmed. "Fact..." Talking points for the mindless sheeple.
Also, everywhere I look and listen, I keep noticing the words Syria and Iran linked to terrorists and terrorism in every way possible.
I watched Solidad O'Brien on CNN's American Morning question everyone if they were "homegrown terrorists" so many times it felt like she'd been handed a Newspeak script faxed from the White House.
Comment #41: kingsrook5 said on 8/10/06 @ 8:21pm ET...
I couldn't agree more. I would like to ask everyone to contact Democratic Leaders Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Charles Shumer and Connecticut Senator Charles Dodd and emplore them to both renounce Senator Lieberman's "independent" run and call for either his concession or his resignation from the party. There is also a call for Harry Reid to re-assign Joe Liberman's committee seats to true members of the party. (You may support this effort at www.giveemhellharry.com)
The following is a letter I wrote to Senator Lieberman on this matter:
Senator Lieberman,
Our forefathers envisioned an America where elected officials honored the spirit of Democracy by placing the will of the voters above their own political agenda. Were this truly the case I'm confident you would now be serving your second term as Vice President. Unfortunately, six years ago, Florida's Secretary of State decided to join with the Bush campaign in a collective decision to put their own self-interests above the will of the people, and you were robbed of your duly elected post. How ironic that now, six years later, you must decide whether or not to put your own personal political interests above the collective will of Democratic Party, to which you've been fighting so hard to prove that you truly belong.
If you had decided to run for re-election as an Independent because you honestly felt you could not represent the interests of your constituents to the best of your abilities under the current Democratic Party that would be one thing. However, jumping from one party to another to maximize your own chance of winning is indicative of the same despicable "win at all costs" philosophy that Karl Rove and Tom Delay now exemplify. Those who believe political affiliations are nothing more than meaningless titles for politicians to take on and off as it suits them do their Parties a great disservice and should not hold elected office under their banners. I believe you lost this election because you simply do not see the danger the Bush Administration poses to democracy and civil rights, worldwide. If you truly appreciated the severity of the situation you would never draw time, energy and resources away from the essential task of electing a Democratic Congress in November. I understand it must be difficult to accept that you lost this election. However, if you truly are the Democrat you claim to be, you will show the voters that you have the integrity to do the honorable thing and respect the collective will of the party to which you chosen to be a member; Support the winner of the Democratic Primary. Support Ned Lamont.
Comment #42: Truth_in_action said on 8/10/06 @ 8:54pm ET...
Off topic
#38, yes, koryannder, simply amazing, isn’t it? Great video clip.
Everyone, here's the link that koryannder found. CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight reporting - Will the North American Union replace the United States?.
A Union of the United States, Mexico and Canada.
WHERE IS THE CONGRESS ON THIS ISSUE?
And for your reading pleasure after you view the video, I found these on the White House website:
(1) Fact Sheet: Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
(2) Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Prosperity Agenda
PROSPERITY AGENDA
Promoting Growth, Competitiveness and Quality of Life.
(3) Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Security Agenda
We are launching the next generation of our common security strategy to further secure North America and ensure the streamlined movement of legitimate travelers and cargo across our shared borders. To this end, Canada, the United States, and Mexico will work together to ensure the highest continent-wide security standards and streamlined risk-based border processes are achieved in the following priority areas:
(4) President Receives 90-Day Report on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
(5) The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: Progress.
(6) The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: Next Steps.
(7) Executive Order: Implementing Amendments to Agreement on Border Environment Cooperation Commission and North American Development Bank.
Comment #43: Frosted Flake said on 8/10/06 @ 9:35pm ET...
"When you break eggs," Hill said of the war, "you've got to try to make an omelet out of it."
No, you don't. You have got to get out the mop. Unless it is your habit to eat garbage. Who is Baron Hill (IN-9), anyway? And how is it he managed to put into words what the republicans are up to this morning?
Cheney rushes into fray
Republicans seized on Lieberman's predicament, dispatching Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials to pit Lamont and his backers against moderate Democrats. Not only did it create a curious political dynamic, it provided the GOP a new opportunity to caricature Democrats as weak on security and espousing what Cheney called "a pre-9/11 mindset."
If you look up this thread you will see that I disscussed a pre-9/11 mindset. I'm going to claim a bullseye for that one. The very idea scares the f_ck out of them, doesn't it? So, of course, The Great White Hunter leaps to his feet and commences to whip the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party. Thereby proving there is one. There should be no surprise, this is one of the things that happen when you attempt to beat republicans by becoming them.
The other thing that happens is, as your right wing move rightward, your left wing does also. It doesn't get press, naturally, because it is hoped you will not think of it, but there are MANY more people to the left of the Democratic party than there were before the Party moved right and left them. Standing there. Just where they were when they were Democrats. Many would be pleased to be Democrats once more. My point here is twofold. A/ Losing a Vote on the right is not so very big a problem if you pick one up on the left, B/ Finishing the job, becoming the party on the right, is not so very far as might be thought.
Expanding on point B ; Joe Lieberman represents endless war as moderate. Of course it is not. It is beyond rightwing fringe. And yesterday, Joe was a Democrat. This shows how far right the Party really is. And to the right of him is the entire Rebel Alliance. Did I mention 14/3? This is why it is there. This entire Party could and should be locked up. Did I mention Portland has an entire Jail standing empty? Well, that's a fact. Another fact is, there is nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow streak. Summing up, move right, move left, whichever you like, but don't stand there like a deer in the headlights. You'll get run down.
Moving along Darth Cheany also mentioned security. And we've all heard the story that took over the airwaves this morning. It would be a better story if everyone had the script straight. And even better if it did not contradict itself. And even better if it did not appear immediatly after Ned kicked the Rebels in the balls. And even better if there was a reason the story appeared, just now. And even better if the story did not include a recipe for a bomb, as in, "Hey kids! Try this at home!". And it would be moderatly believable if there were a whiff of evidence. To be plain about it, I don't believe it. And I won't, before it is proven. And I ain't holding my breath. Looks to me like one of those "Ya See! You need us to protect you!" advertisements for the upcoming elections. The Pigs got stuck, now they are screaming like stuck pigs. Can't stop 'em doing this. Just a part of the coodinated response to Ned Lamonts' message.
Moving along to Lebanon, The Israeli Juggernaught just came to a screeching assed halt. Why? To give time and space for diplomacy? How could that be so, when the purpose of the juggernaught was to eliminate time and space for diplomacy, and it just got started? What changed?
Hezbolla
destroyed a company of
Merkava. Israel didn't stop. Israel
was stopped. If you think this author is a lefty (an odd thing to say about an Israeli, as they are Communists) then you should read the other piece he
published.
Second topic. Did anyone else get hacked this morning? Turned off my modem. Took half the day to get it back. I probably wouldn't have problems like this if I just shut up.
I'll consider it.
Frosted Flake
P.S. Welcome Kingsrook5. I'll look into it.
Hmm, bad link to the Tribune. Go to
http://www.chicagotribune.com , paste Jeff Zeleny into the search box, hit GO, click on Lieberman loss ripples across U.S.
Comment #44: Nolip said on 8/10/06 @ 10:33pm ET...
Connect the dots...follow the money...the Israeli\Hezbollah war...now the so called terrorist plot...it's just too convenient...somebody is driving this train and it's more than likely our own government who seek to retain power by scaring the bejesus out of the people of this nation...who needs the boogey man...we've got Bush and a Congress that's asleep at the switch...if this was a Democratic administration there'd be hearings up the wazoo...but with the Rethuglicans, it's business as usual as "Murder Inc." under the guise of "There's A Terrorist Under Every Rock and Tree"....the inmates are running the asylum.
