Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSenator Joseph Lieberman, chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, recently did a 180 and said that he will not hold investigations into the disastrous Bush administration(non-)response to Hurricane Katrina. He said, "We don't want to play ‘gotcha' anymore" and that "looking back… would be a waste of Congress' time."
In an attempt to explain the inexplicable Lieberman's spokeswoman Leslie Philips offered this somewhat bizarre statement: "The senator believes a more productive use of his time and that of his staff is to… ensure that a response to a future catastrophe is better."
Huh? Isn't that the whole point of examining the mistakes that were made and why they occurred? To make sure that we get it right the next time?
In fact, Phillips' statement was reminiscent of something Lieberman wrote in May, 2006 in support of the very investigations he is now dismissing: "Only through a thorough and comprehensive investigation of what went wrong [can] we be assured that the government will know what steps are necessary to get it right the next time." Lieberman also decried "a conscious strategy of slow-walking our investigation in the hope that we would run out of time to follow the investigation's natural progression to where it leads." He accused the White House of ordering witnesses not to respond to questions, and the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security of failing to cooperate as well.
But Lieberman Version 2006 was on the verge of losing his party's nomination for Senate and was desperately treading water to save his political life. Lieberman Version 2007, in contrast, owes his new political life in part to George Bush who steered Republican support his way in the general election. It's pay-back time.
Gotcha, Joe.
One hopes that others will pick up the ball dropped by the feckless Lieberman. Presidential candidate Barack Obama is a member of Lieberman's committee. This is a clear opportunity for him to speak out in support of common sense and against the "smallness of politics"--a centerpiece of his campaign.
In the House, Representative Henry Waxman chairs the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (Waxman is also a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose members chair the majority of committees and subcommittees and have generally committed to making New Orleans a priority.) He told me today, "I have a strong interest in the response to Hurricane Katrina, and it is under consideration by the Committee." But, according to Newsweek , Speaker Nancy Pelosi is "keep[ing] committees on a tight leash."
Former FEMA Director Michael Brown says there was a video conference in the White House Situation Room, in which he warned "senior officials" about the disastrous situation and was met with "deafening silence." There are also believed to be records of conversations between Bush, Cheney, and aides as "the disaster was unfolding."
Joe Lieberman Version 2006 had it right. Joe Version 2007 is smoking something. Who will step up to ensure that our government learns the lessons it needs to learn to strengthen the security of all Americans?
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Well, Ms vanden Heuvel if...
"Waxman still hasn't made any final decision and Speaker Nancy Pelosi is "keep[ing] committees on a tight leash."
Seems there's a "Henry Waxman-2006" and a "Henry Waxman-2007" as well, maybe "Pelosi-2006" and "Pelosi-2007" too, huh?
As for "Lieberman Version 2007, in contrast, owes his new political life in part to George Bush who steered Republican support his way in the general election. It's payback time."
You're surprised? The Blogs, "netroots", even "The Nation" tried to kill his political career...why SHOULD he be nice to you?
Joe was only SLIGHTLY more warmongering than Hillary...but he had a vunerable seat in 2006, so he was targetted by the Left. Now they (like you) want him to "forgive and forget" and be the good progressive he promised on other issues.
I don't like him....but I sure don't blame him for not complying.
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 4:20pm
The Democrats should dump all the "Joe Liebermans" in its ranks. With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans?
Posted by mtspence05 at 02/14/2007 @ 5:34pm
KAT,
Since Lieberman isn't a democrat anymore, then why should he play the partisan games Waxman and others want him to play?
On the other hand, now, as you note, Senator Barack Hussein Obama has a chance to see if he can satisfy the partisan itch to pile on to the Katrina Tragedy. Just remember, though, that Bush has already been rightly blamed for failing to be engaged, and generally mismanaging the relief effort. But remember also Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco deserve their share of the blame for both the pre-and post storm failures, too.....something that is sure to be reviewed at any Senate or House hearings.
Posted by davebarlett at 02/14/2007 @ 7:25pm
You people are as disgusting as Joe Lieberman is if you think that the reason why there should be an investigation into the government's non-response to Katrina. Elderly people in nursing homes were left to drown to death because they could not be moved, disabled people literally sank into the flooded streets and drowned, people lost everything, thousands of people were displaced, and all of it was unnecessary. The government knew for years that the levees were in need of repair and did nothing. Joe Lieberman had the support of the Democratic party in the primaries, it was Democratic voters who rejected his Bush-loving, warmongering, religious right pandering politics. And it seems they 100% right to do so. Joe Lieberman is a self-righteous, petty little man. He claims to be some sort of God-fearing man, but he is an unrepentant heartless man if he willfully ignores the suffering of millions of people in the past and the future just to get back at the Democrats who, unwillingly mind you, went with the will of the voters of their party. If there is a God as Joe Lieberman sees him, he will face the fire next time. He makes me sick.
He owes his political life to George Bush? Well to whom do the people of the Gulf Coast owe their death, displacement, ruined lives, broken families, and overall trauma? Joe Lieberman is the epitome of bad government: he operates solely for the benefit of a political party and sees voters as pesky vermin he has to deal with every election cycle. He bitches and moans about having nearly lost his Senate seat because primary voters rebuffed him. He should meet with someone from the 9th Ward of New Orleans who have suffered so much that they rue the day they lost their homes in decrepit housing projects. That is real loss. He is blind to the fact that this sort of behavior is what makes him unworthy of his Senate seat. He does not work in service to the people. Barney is not the First Dog, Joe Lieberman is.
There is a reason why Americans hold their government in such low regard. One of them is that they look like rich little kids throwing stones at each other in a sandbox. The Democrats deserve to lose their majority in both houses, if Nancy Pelosi does not allow the machinations of the House to work within the mandate the voters gave her and if Joe Lieberman isn't bounced the hell off that committee. Let him go caucus with the Republicans, he votes with them anyway.
Posted by as1504 at 02/14/2007 @ 8:06pm
I suppose, for the Lieberman apologists who say he owes the Democrats nothing, it would be asking too much to expect him to do what he said he would do because he is honorable? because it is the right thing to do? because Congress owes the people of New Orleans answers?
Posted by Queixa at 02/14/2007 @ 8:12pm
Excuse me--but since when is Lieberman's doing his job something other than DOING HIS JOB? His responsibility in investigating the Katrina fiasco has nothing to do with pleasing Katrina VanDen Huevel, or Democrats, or liberals. It has EVERYTHING to do with his trying to prevent a repeat of the disaster, and with his actually earning his fat paycheck. His NOT doing so, on the other hand, has everything to do with trying to please Republicans, conservatives, and their ilk.
Posted by p1davis at 02/14/2007 @ 8:16pm
lieberman...party of one.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 8:32pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/14/2007 @ 5:34pm
What PERCENTAGE of the Democratic Party would that be, MTSP?
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 8:35pm
lieberman...party of one.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/14/2007 @ 8:32pm
Maybe, IBBLE. But with Tim Johnson out, that makes it 49-49 in the Senate, with Lieberman as deciding vote.
That's a pretty powerful "one man party".
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 8:37pm
Mask, you posted:
"Joe was only SLIGHTLY more warmongering than Hillary...but he had a vunerable seat in 2006, so he was targetted by the Left. Now they (like you) want him to "forgive and forget" and be the good progressive he promised on other issues.
"I don't like him....but I sure don't blame him for not complying."
Don't you think one really has little to do with the other. We can talk politics and about how each side has a score to settle, but Katrina is a matter that is about more than politics. I think we can agree on that.
Senator Lieberman does not have a good excuse to not investigate Katrina. It might be hard to believe, but aren't there some things that transcend politics? The state of New Orleans is a scandal. Not only that but Ms. Vanden Heuvel is right; how can we be bettered prepared if we do not review our own mistakes?
Of course, that does not mean that they actually will but one still should make the case for it.
Posted by hhemwm at 02/14/2007 @ 9:18pm
Wow! Joe Lieberman whom the Demoncrats deserted like Rats then swarmed around Lamont with their support should expect him to always follow the Demoncrat party line!
Has anyone recognized that he is now an Independent capable of making his own decisions and owes the Demoncrats nothing, zip, nada, zero, and even much less those calling themselves progressive!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/14/2007 @ 5:30pm
Nice try, Rio. But how do you think this Independent gets his chairmanship? By caucusing with the Democrats. No caucus, no chairmanship.
Posted by hhemwm at 02/14/2007 @ 9:20pm
Posted by HHEMWM 02/14/2007 @ 9:18pm
HHEMWM, let's not be disengenuous here, huh?
A "Katrina Committee" isn't going to be some "moderate, quiet, deliberate study of what went wrong, from the city level to the state level to the Federal level"....Obama would do his "Senator Geary" ("Godfather Part-II") lecture from the dias, reports of "where Bush was when people were drowning" would come out every week, and Nagin and Blanco would be excused like Biden calling somebody "clean and articulate".
And everybody, including Ms vH and Lieberman knows it. Joe IS "paying back" Bush...and his Left opponents....by cutting off a circus (yes, maybe a NEEDED one even) and laughing in the face of those that tried to oust him.
NOTHING truly transcends politics these days....do you REALLY think Katrina vanden Heuvel JUST wants to "prevent it from happening next time by studying past mistakes" or is she being as politically motivated as Joe Lieberman?
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2007 @ 9:37pm
It's got nothing to do with complying or following the party line. It's all about:
"Only through a thorough and comprehensive investigation of what went wrong [can] we be assured that the government will know what steps are necessary to get it right the next time."
Posted by Balrog at 02/14/2007 @ 10:38pm
Posted by MASK 02/14/2007 @ 8:37pm
is he out? i thought they would wheel him in with one of those machines that go bing and allow him to vote by blinking...sorry, bad taste, but i thought he was getting better...prayers for him.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/14/2007 @ 11:06pm
This only shows us that we should never trust any politician.
The Republicans bedded the three sisters of politics: Power, Hate, and Greed?
The Democrats are still searching for the Courage to do anything.
And each is responsible for the other, and the voters for both.
Perhaps we deserved to be the victims of our own stupidity.
Posted by bohdan yuri at 02/15/2007 @ 12:48am
I'm beginning to miss the cold war.
I'll explain. when the soviets shut down the access routes to Berlin, in order to glom it, the US mounted the largest airlift ever, with planes landing every three minutes in Berlin to supply the city's inhabitants with food, coal etc. this effort must have cost a pretty penny.
now contrast that response with the effort made to bring the devastated city of New Orleans back to life. it has been a shamefully half hearted response to be sure.
the US has destroyed Iraq and is now spending huge sums to rebuild it, well spending huge sums anyway, while an american city withers. welcome to Bush's AMERIKKKA.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2007 @ 07:40am
The cancer growing out of the side of McCain's face is his conscience trying to escape his body.
McCain once stood for removing money from politics. The Rockefeller elite and Israel have put him in his place - through threats and blackmail. He is a broken man who does not believe the words he speaks. He is a shill, and he knows it. Divide & Conquer - that's ALL politics is about - just a game played by the elite to keep us baffled and divided.
The concerted effort that you see now in the media reveals the end of the slippery slope. Not a day after the most recent elections, the media were already hyping the next ones - 24/7. The effort by so many states to move up their Primaries means that the American People will be buried in political banter on a year-round basis. Politics. Not News. Politics - 24/7 - forever.
Rockefeller's wet dream is coming true. He controls the media, he controls Congress, he controls the banks and he controls the oil.
Is there not a single patriot in Congress who will step forward and reveal the truth of the blackmail, bribes and intimidation in order to save our Republic?
Aaron Russo - The most important interview of our time:
http://tinyurl.com/29gyyb
You MUST watch this and share it with EVERYONE.
A shorter version is here:
http://tinyurl.com/392w7j
The Council On Foreign Relations DID 9/11 The Rockefellers DID 9/11. The "War On Terror" does not exist. "Bin Laden" does not exist.
If you don't STOP – and take the time to watch this, you cannot ridicule those who risk their own personal security to tell the truth. If you do watch it, and love America, you'll never again ridicule a TRUTHTELLER.
STOP what you are doing. WATCH THIS INTERVIEW. Then share it with EVERYONE.
Google Video Search: Historic Interview With Aaron Russo
Posted by plunger at 02/15/2007 @ 07:47am
Here's the Video that Google Video PULLED DOWN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA
Posted by plunger at 02/15/2007 @ 08:02am
Joe Lieberman didn't want to accept the results of the Democratic primary, and the choice of voters. As a human being, I can understand why he wants keep on going, but, from the voter's point of view, he has turned into an example why term limits would be best for democracy, why politicians should plan for a life after politics. Professional politicians with their decades long service records do not advance democracy, they stall true progress. Joe Lieberman has fallen into this trap, and my hunch is, because he has got so much company, he thinks it's okay. It isn't.
Posted by Hardy Rang at 02/15/2007 @ 08:16am
Why should Joe care? It's not like the voters hold him accountable. He won in November going away, so he probably feels invincible. And as long as there is no campaign reform, incumbents like Joe will always be nearly invincible. It truly isn't the politicians' faults - the electorate goes to the polls over and over and keeps electing the same lousy weasels, and then spends the rest of the year complaining about the government. There are no viable options for candidates without either personal wealth or the ability and willingness to prostitute themselves for corporations.
Why do you think that politicians refuse to address campaign reform? And why do you think that politicians fuel the fire that keeps people polarized? Because if millions of people could put aside petty differences and get behind the really important issues, there would be a significant housecleaning in Washington...and right before that happens, Bush will apologize for, well for everything, Clinton will spend a few months (years?) making amends for all his debauchery, Ted Kennedy will go to rehab, Karl Rove will grow a soul, and Joe Biden will go more than 24 hours without saying something asinine.
Posted by Turk33 at 02/15/2007 @ 08:40am
Could it be that old Joe is mighty pleased with Bush's (Dick Cheney's) war agenda? Lets see how much money the Israeli war lobby is giving him. Israeli hawks want us to start a war with Iran. Let the US pay in blood and treasure.
Old Joe is a two faced farce. He and Susan Collins were repulsed by waste and fraud at the inept handling of Katrina by Bush brainchild DHS. Cheney's son in law has run for cover, but maybe he left too early. Old Joe would have made sure that he would be okay. It is worthy to mention that Cheney's son in law, a former Lockheed-Martin lobbyist and now a Lockheed-Martin lobbyist once again upon his resignation helped to negotiate a $25 billion defense contract for Lockeed Martin before he left his post.
""[Homeland Security] has been one of our persistent access challenges," GAO Comptroller General David Walker told the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. Walker said the problem is "systemic" and not the fault of any single individual. But he complained that GAO has had to go through the office of Chief Counsel Philip Perry. Perry is married to Elizabeth Cheney, a former State Department official who is one of the vice president's two daughters. Walker said it is his understanding that Perry's office has to review documents GAO seeks before they are released and that Perry selectively sits in on interviews with department employees.""
Source: Cheney's Son in Law Blamed for Delaying Investigations of Homeland Security; ThinkProgress.org
Old Joe may be pissed at the Democrats for their rejection of him, but remember he wasn't really a Democrat to begin with. He abdication of Congressional responsibility should be an investigation in itself.
Congress keeps writing a playbook that ever increases options for corruption and lack of oversight. This is the proverbial "fox in charge of the hen-house." The level of arrogance never ceases to amaze. In the paraphrased words of Joe Liebermann at Katrina fraud investigation ---this is hard to believe--
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 08:56am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/14/2007 @ 11:06pm
Tim Johnson is still out. Like you, I certainly wish the best for the man and his family.
In the meantime though, the US Senate is tied (which gives VP Cheney the tie-breaker), or even has a ONE vote majority for Republicans with Lieberman joining them. (not to mention the occasional "blue dog Dem").
Which brings up an interesting point....this "rush" of legislation out of the House, which is almost DOA when it reaches the Senate....doesn't Pelosi realize that, or ...is it possible she does?
Dems can pass non-binding resolutions, timidity at it highest, and STILL watch them stopped in the Senate. Thus, covering ALL bases, when it comes to the war and the 2008 elections. They were "against it", "helpless to stop it", and Dem Senators can take BOTH sides depending on the infinitesimal likelihood that things improve in Iraq or even have some CYA if (more like when) it fails....here's why-
2008 rolls around and without Democratic ACTION on Iraq, the Republicans and McCain can't blame anything solid that the Democrats DID in Congress on "why we lost Iraq". After all, "non-binding resolutions out of the House, killed by the Senate" don't have a DAMN thing to do with funding for the war or even much on troop morale, if the Congress as a whole didn't pass it...does it?
So, the Dems' hands are "clean", even RIO/CPT/LVLIB types can't claim that the "Demoncrats lost us Iraq"....when the "Demoncrats"...
didn't DO anything!
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 08:56am
"he is a republican dishonestly masquerading first as a democrat and now as an "independent"
Posted by ZERO 02/14/2007 @ 5:33pm "
...kinda brings up the old memory of "Independent Jeffords"...he wasn't even close to a republican or an independent, I think the only ones who thought he wasn't a Dem were the MSM...
Joe is truely independent it seems to me,and seems to be telling the Dems.." Who are you ?, I don't owe you jack shit.", and he would be correct, of course..
Joe could be the first real independent...it is interesting to watch those who worked so hard for his defeat now wimper when he gives them the middle finger and yell traitor...
Posted by john maasch at 02/15/2007 @ 09:35am
Rio Bravo Those ice storms have no relevance to the global warming issue.Conservatives need to start caring about their kids,grandkids,that which God created etc and stop worrying about whether or not an oil execs kid will be able to buy a summer home in Hawaii.The global warming issue is a simple issue that requires little debate.If we believe those scientists who say that humans are,at least in part,responsible for this and greatly reduce pollution levels then future generations will benefit even if those scientists are wrong.If we listen to the other scientists then great harm can happen if they are wrong.
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/15/2007 @ 09:51am
BTW, before this becomes ALL about Joe Lieberman, I'm drawn back to these few lines from Ms vanden Heuvel's piece....
"He (Henry Waxman) told me today, "I have a strong interest in the response to Hurricane Katrina, and it is under consideration by the Committee." But, according to Newsweek , Speaker Nancy Pelosi is "keep[ing] committees on a tight leash."
So...where's the outrage about what Pelosi, maybe even Waxman, are doing?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 10:14am
why is it that most of the Tory posters here are so "intellectually challenged" to put it kindly? they are mostly ignorant of the most basic facts, and their "contribution" seem to be mainly empty slogans. they resort to the most primitive rhetorical tricks, and when challenged slink off into the night of their ignorance.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2007 @ 11:01am
Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 10:14am | ignore this person
Couldn't agree more Mask. I am trying to decide who disgusts me more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Both are lying POS's.
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 11:05am
Posted by ONEVOTE 02/15/2007 @ 11:05am
Ahhh... but who did Ms vanden Heuval GO AFTER?
Lieberman, of course. Why? Simple, she can't risk attacking the Speaker of the House or a "friend" in the House Progressive Caucus!
But mean ol' "Don't understand, even though we tried to screw him, he still OWES us" Joe Lieberman...no problem!
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 11:31am
Tell you what. I won't be voting for any Democratic party political machine candidates in 2008. Their rhetoric and refusal to do what they promised to do...."drain the swamp" is crap. They have jumped into swamp...guess they were always there to begin with.
How about a honest to goodness Republican who really believes in a conservative agenda. We need one badly. Got any suggestions?
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 11:54am
Hey Kat....how about an article on all of Nancy Pelosi's promises she hasn't and doesn't intend to keep? I think the Nation does need to be fair and balanced. As I recall, she promised immediate action if the Dems took Congress. That doesn't mean after the 2008 elections.
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 12:07pm
How about a honest to goodness Republican who really believes in a conservative agenda. We need one badly. Got any suggestions?
Posted by ONEVOTE 02/15/2007 @ 11:54am
Sorry, can't help....I'm kind of rooting for Bill Richardson.
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 12:48pm
"Barack Hussein Obama"? I expected this tactic, just not so soon. Not-so-subtle message: He has a FOREIGN-sounding name. Maybe he's not AMERICAN enough. Maybe he's not really one of US. He might even be one of THEM, wink, wink! I really hope this tactic backfires, because it diminishes us all, regardless of political affiliation. Ironically, it's the very "smallness of our politics" that Senator Obama keeps speaking about.
Posted by jfancher at 02/15/2007 @ 1:08pm
Sorry, can't help....I'm kind of rooting for Bill Richardson.
Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 12:48am
On this, I am totally in agreement with you, Mask. He is by far the most qualified, and probably the most electable. If Gore hadn't screwed up so badly in 2000 (even though he did win the popular vote), he'd be a candidate I could vote for. Hilary just doesn't seem electable, and I'm not sure that I would want her as president.
As for Republicans, the only one that would be palatable at this point is Chuck Hagel. Rudy would be a distant runner-up for me - after that the choices make me nauseous. A long time ago I had respect for McCain - a long time ago!
Posted by Turk33 at 02/15/2007 @ 1:09pm
All of this partisan political bickering, meanwhile a great American city lies in ruin. What is it going to take?
Posted by I think good at 02/15/2007 @ 1:31pm
"As for "Lieberman Version 2007, in contrast, owes his new political life in part to George Bush who steered Republican support his way in the general election. It's payback time."
You're surprised? The Blogs, "netroots", even "The Nation" tried to kill his political career...why SHOULD he be nice to you?
Joe was only SLIGHTLY more warmongering than Hillary...but he had a vunerable seat in 2006, so he was targetted by the Left. Now they (like you) want him to "forgive and forget" and be the good progressive he promised on other issues.
I don't like him....but I sure don't blame him for not complying.
Posted by MASK 02/14/2007 @ 4:20pm " So now, for the sake of politics as usual, it's all right to leave U.S. citizens screwed over by piss-poor execution of disaster relief THAT THEY'RE STILL SUFFERING FROM? You need more practice at pretending to be a human being, MASK. The act has clearly slipped. Who tried to screw WHO between Joe Lieberman and the Democrats in the Senate? He lost the Democratic Primary, did you miss that? They backed the Democratic Primary winner, the way they're supposed to, and not even all of them did that! He was allowed to keep his seniority (a vast mistake, I think, since he didn't run from within the party) AND a committee chair! Cut the crap, Mask, et. al.
Posted by brantl at 02/15/2007 @ 2:14pm
Posted by TURK33 02/15/2007 @ 1:09pm
If TURK and I can agree on Bill Richardson...that's a good sign for a candidate who can win broad support and a strong mandate for change.
Shame that's not likely to be the kind of candidate we get from EITHER party.
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 2:14pm
Posted by BRANTL 02/15/2007 @ 2:14pm
Was "I don't like him" too subtle for you, BRANTL?
I SAID that and merely noted that it is perfectly understandable that Joe Lieberman might not "do the honorable thing"...as almost no politicians do...and would reward his supporters (the GOP) and "punish" his opponents (those, like you, who want a "Katrina Committee" to get at Bush).
And YES, that IS what a "Katrina Committee" is really about, despite disengenuousness from those who say it isn't.
It isn't about helping "U.S. citizens screwed over by piss-poor execution of disaster relief THAT THEY'RE STILL SUFFERING FROM".
That can be done with an appropriations bill for BILLIONS passed by the DEMOCRATIC (not Lieberman)-controlled Congress....as of a MONTH ago.
No...it's about finding some LIKELY JUSTIFIABLE malfeasance and stupidity on the part of the Bush Administration to use for political purposes.
Not ONE BIT of aid or relief or re-building is stopped by Lieberman not running a "Katrina Investigation Committee"....
maybe (again) you should ask Speaker Nancy and Henry Waxman why no supplemental spending/relief bills are on the fast track first???
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 2:20pm
He was allowed to keep his seniority (a vast mistake, I think, since he didn't run from within the party) AND a committee chair! Cut the crap, Mask, et. al.
Posted by BRANTL 02/15/2007 @ 2:14pm | ignore this person
it's called POLITICS. the dems need him for their majority. until they can be sure of enough repubs crossing over the aisle, Liebermann is in the catbird seat.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2007 @ 2:23pm
Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 12:48am | ignore this person
Mask..you never cease to amaze him. I was telling my elderly father the other day....a reformed former Bush supporter...that Bill Richardson is by far the best looking candidate for 2008. I can't think of one bono fide true conservative Republican off hand that I would vote for. I like the courage of Chuck Hagel, but don't know much about him. Biil Richardson looks good, and hopefully he will stay far away enough from Congress and the DNC to avoid picking up the stink.
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 2:38pm
Posted by TURK33 02/15/2007 @ 1:09pm | ignore this person
DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER HILLARY CLINTON!!
Any candidate who doesn't have the guts to admit she made a mistake doesn't belong in office. We've already got one of those thank you.
Stick with your instincts....Bill Richardson
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 2:57pm
Stick with your instincts....Bill Richardson
Posted by ONEVOTE 02/15/2007 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person
as far as I know, he has not declared his running for pres. Gore/Obama in '08
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2007 @ 3:08pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 02/15/2007 @ 2:38pm
As a progressive, you shouldn't need lecturing from me about "staying away from a 'black or white' view of the world"...
or those that might disagree with you from point to point on a blog!
Richardson has more qualifications and MORE cross-ideological appeal than anybody I can think of.....hell, he CUT TAXES! He knows energy, he's not some left-wing looney, he's been in Congress AND the Executive, he's visited a couple dozen countries.
He's Latino and can be strong on illegal immigration without taking the "racist" charge hit from the Left.
etc., etc., etc.
Only one problem...he's not "Her" (HRC)...or the "cute white guy" (JE)...or the "younger cute black guy" (BO).
Hopefully he'll get Veep.
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 3:43pm
as far as I know, he has not declared his running for pres. Gore/Obama in '08
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/15/2007 @ 3:08pm
!?!!?!?!?!?!?.....Has Al Gore declared he's running either?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 3:43pm
Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person
The very fact that I can agree with on some of your ideas proves that I don't your lecturing on shades of grey. If I truly viewed the world as black or white, I would have blown you off as an extremist long ago. Some of your ideas are off the wall and you have the right to your opinion, but when you take someone else's commentary out of context to push your own agenda you are not putting your best foot forward and I am going to call you on it.
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 4:38pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 02/15/2007 @ 4:38pm
Why ONEVOTE....that's EXACTLY how I feel about you!
Say for instance calling "SLIVER" a "Bush lover" when his post in that thread said NOTHING about George Bush....or claiming that I "opposed alternative energy", when it was totally non sequiter to our discussion of the Cold War?!??!?!
hehe
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 4:56pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/15/2007 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person
Acknowledged. Exploratory Committee only. See billrichardson.com.
Gosh...you really think Gore can win? Gore doesn't even have an exploratory committee does he?
Just can't see this as a viable ticket. Richardson doesn't have much of a chance with the DNC right now either, unfortunately. My hope is that Democratic voters will be so pissed off at the Democratic Congress by the time of the convention that Richardson will look great to all the voters. Obama talks a nice line, but is a unknown quantity. I like the fact he hasn't been in Congress very long which is a plus in my book. We've been lied to so many times before by our politicians, that I just can't trust any of them on emotional appeal anymore. Better look to experience...preferably not as a Congressman, for qualified candidates. Only one that foots that bill right now is Richardson.
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 4:59pm
Gosh...you really think Gore can win? Gore doesn't even have an exploratory committee does he?
it's a long way to...now let's see, he wins the oscar, he wins the nobel, he has paid his dues, he is a lifetime public servant, he has no Iraq votes to drag him down. looks pretty good to me, but time will tell.
most of all, he has won before, in 2000
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2007 @ 5:06pm
Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person
I think you are confused once again Mask. Better take a nappy.
Sliver's remarks had to do with 4th Government not your Pentagon suckup jaunt.
I notice Sliver never returned to defend himself. Hit and run. I am sure you have alot of respect for these basket cases whose IQ is lower than their age. Maybe you should pick a potshot blogger who will stand by you for more than one line to defend?
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 5:42pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/15/2007 @ 5:06pm | ignore this person
I hope he does run. It will add alot to the debate. I still can't believe how the Republican cabal stole the election two times. Now that Diebold's tricks and other such Republican tactics have been revealed, maybe we have a fair election in 2008.
Let us hope! And yes, he does deserve a Nobel Prize for making global warming a national issue of importance in a Country whose media is controlled by Corporate interests who could give a crap about the future of the planet and whose President bends over for the energy cartel every time.
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 5:50pm
Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person
Oh forgot to mention Mask. Your take on Cuba's poverty being all the fault of Castro and not the embargo because Castro allows trade with other countries besides the US is full of it. There you go again...commie baiting. You sure Joe McCarthy isn't your daddy?
What does Cuba export?
The market that is critical to Cuba is the US. You remember Cuba pre Castro. Sugar exports, cigars, perishible commodities, and tourism. All of these were US driven markets because of close proximity of Cuba to US. Put the pipe down pal and think clear headed for a change.
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 6:04pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 02/15/2007 @ 5:50pm | ignore this person
last time around I found ALL dem candidates interesting. Dean, though he did not get far, added enormously to the debate, and he has of course done great work for the dem party. our primary system is one of the best features of our democracy.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2007 @ 6:28pm
Looks like its going to be a free for all among the Democrats. Republicans don't have anyone in the race right now that stands a snowball's chance. There aren't many true republicans in Congress right now. These guys posing as Republicans in Congress should be sued for copyright infringement. Its the Dems race to lose. What do you think of Edwards?
Posted by OneVote at 02/15/2007 @ 7:11pm
I think the Tory candidate will be Romney, the opportunist. he was able to fool the electorate in Massachusetts. I think once people get to know Giuliani, they will recoil. McCain is too old, it would be like Dole.
Edwards is fine, as far as he goes, Hillary too, though I hate her overly cautious approach. let them all take a swing at it, and I include Richardson, who comes across as thoughtful. on experience alone it should be Gore. I actually think that the campaign can't start soon enough.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2007 @ 7:42pm
one advantage of starting the campaign now, is that it will get the smears out of the way now, instead of later, where they could do more harm
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/15/2007 @ 8:04pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/15/2007 @ 5:06pm
Money, JR, money!
Hillary and Obama are fighting over "the pie" as we speak with Bill getting people like Spielberg. It's limited (you know, like the liberal theory of economics and wealth).
If Gore doesn't have a GOOD percentage of that lined up by....a MONTH ago....he can't raise enough to compete in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.
He COULD take his Nobel prize money and try to self-finance...but it might not be enough, in fact probably not.
Plus there's the DEBATES...first one is in APRIL...this year. Which means he would have to announce NEXT month.
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 9:23pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 02/15/2007 @ 6:04pm
Just SAYIING it doesn't make it so, OV.
Castro had PLENTY of opportunity under Soviet aid (1962-1990) to revitalize and ALTER his country's economy to something OTHER than sugar and cigars...and didn't.
Why? Because he needed to fund his bloated social welfare state (to maintain it as a "workers' paradise") and the police and military needed to suppress his people.
And how about THIS for an additional reason to blame Castro...his own fat EGO.
If he REALLY cared about the welfare of his people, he'd know that HE (as a person) was the block to opening up relations with the US.
If he had stepped down by as late as the Fall of the Berlin Wall, and the "Miami Crowd" would have little excuse to deny Cuba trade, especially with China open. And US politicians wouldn't have had any excuse either.
So...the blame for Cuba's failed economy....is whose fault?
Now, I KNOW you're not going to be so dumb as to make excuses for Castro not doing that...are you?
Posted by Mask at 02/15/2007 @ 9:34pm
Mask, I am not being disingenuous.
I don't know what Ms. Vanden Heuvel's motives are, I am not a mind reader. What I am interested in is seeing action on New Orleans and an investigation of what went wrong during the "recovery" after Katrina. . . a recovery that is still going on but gets little attention or concern.
Posted by hhemwm at 02/15/2007 @ 10:25pm
If Rio Bravo thinks that the onset of cold weather is enough to suddenly put a stop to the global warming discussion he is in for an interesting time of it. Buy a weather station, you will never be bored! It would give you something else to do aside from posting here constantly! :-)
By his logic he will be claiming the sky is falling during every heat wave and breathing a sigh of relief during every cold spell. That is a precarious life! How ever does one make up one's own mind? By holding a finger to the winds?
Not a scientist, are we? If you were, I would love to read your research. You must have fun with your conclusions. . .
I am surprised at you, actually; I would think someone who sees the world being so definitively as black and white would look at more than just transitory weather patterns to evaluate a case. Apparently not. You are actually being a relativist, dare I say it. . . .
Posted by hhemwm at 02/15/2007 @ 10:30pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/15/2007 @ 7:42pm | ignore this person
I am betting that Clinton is going to get the nod. She is riding on the coattails of her husband's presidency, and likely has the ability to raise more money than any other candidate. Gore could raise alot of money too but I think Gore and Clinton are going to be knocking on alot of the same doors. Hope Gore doesn't back off if he wants to be President just cause the DNC fears dilution of power.
Hilliary Clinton needs to be more honest. I don't buy the argument that her decison on the war is all Bush's fault for providing misinformation to Congress. Hillary has been around the block, and she certainly knows or ought to know the Cheney Rumsfield Rice Wolfowitz agenda. Congress has due diligence responsibilites. Hilliary needs to decide who she owes loyalty to. Her New York pro-war constitutency, like Lieberman's, doesn't jive with what the majority wants. She of course is hedging her bets, and that kind of conduct only affirms my fear that she is going to do whats good for Hilliary, rather than whats good for this country.
I agree with you on Rudy. Lots of folks are saying that his management of 9/11 is all that he has got going for him, and even that is subject to challenge, and that his views on issues such as gay rights, abortion, and marriage (by virtue of his conduct) will offend lots of the conservative base. Should be very interesting. Can't wait until Dick Cheney announces...lol....
Posted by OneVote at 02/16/2007 @ 06:57am
Posted by MASK 02/15/2007 @ 9:34pm | ignore this person
I dislike Castro just as much you do. He is a fat bag of lies with a monumental ego as you assert. However, Soviet aid to his economy presumes that the USSR had any purchasing power to buy goods from their puppet state. USSR's military budget didn't exactly leave much purchasing power left over for goods from Cuba.
Castro, being for Castro, was never going to step down just cause US wanted him to. I think we agree that this embargo has not had its intended affect. I believe that if relations with Cuba had been a little more friendly, that perhaps there may have been more opportunity to subvert Castro's influence. This line of thinking has been espoused by foreing policy gurus for a long time....trade with China....import goods, export ideas. It seems to be working...little by little. The hard line intransigence of our friends in South Florida needs to be examined for what it is.
Posted by OneVote at 02/16/2007 @ 07:15am
If there is any doubt that God has a sense of humor, it has to be dispelled by a headline in Wednesday's Drudge Report: "House hearing on 'warming of the planet' canceled after ice storm."
He followed up with this: "Save it for a sunny day: Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area canceling screening of Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' because of a snowstorm."
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/15/2007 @ 01:47am | ignore this person
Rio, that's like denying an upward trend in the stock market because there are some days when it goes down.
Posted by green2006 at 02/16/2007 @ 07:50am
Posted by HHEMWM 02/15/2007 @ 10:25pm
HHEM....not going to accuse you of disengenuousness, but here's an honesty and analytical question for you...
What percentage of the statements and reports issued by a "Katrina Investigation Committee" would be...
A. Recommendations for policy and administrative changes to avoid future disasters.
B. Attacks (justifible, I'm agreeing) on specifically the Bush Administration.
I'm betting (and I think EVERYBODY, including Ms vH) on "A"--15%, "B"-- 85%.
And if Ms vanden Heuvel thinks that THAT is the reason Joe Lieberman is "paying back his supporters" (Bush and the GOP)....then she must ALSO agree that if Lieberman isn't holding an investigation to HELP them...then such a committee surely would have HURT them.
Which means it's NOT just about "trying to stop it from happening again".
IOW, Joe can't be "guilty" of "covering for Bush" by NOT having the committee....if Ms vanden Heuvel doesn't believe that such a committee's primary effect is to hurt the Administration...not "fix the problem".
Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 09:36am
Rio, that's like denying an upward trend in the stock market because there are some days when it goes down.
Posted by GREEN2006 02/16/2007 @ 07:50am
Uh, GREEN...that WAS the excuse given by the Left, for why part of Social Security couldn't go into the Stock Market under the SS Reform plans of the Right.
Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 09:38am
Posted by ONEVOTE 02/16/2007 @ 07:15am
1. Again, nothing was preventing Castro from taking his aid from the USSR and putting towards industrialization and a move away from the almost purely agricultural economy he had. IDEOLOGY prevented him (until the late 80s) from promoting tourism...after all, can't have all thosee "bougeouise, capitalist" resort hotels going up on the beach when you're the "classless, socialist workers' paradise", can ya?
2. I think we agree on the duplicity of Castro in general. But remember it didn't even have to start with him stepping down....how about just some "glasnost" and "perestroika" (however that's translated into Spanish). Then maybe we would have gotten a "Senor Yeltsin" on a car hood in downtown Habana in 1990.
Finally, "blaming the Cuban exiles in Miami" is a easy out and typical of Castro apologists on the American Left. While I disagree with their support of the embargo, I don't automatically accuse them of not truly wanting to free their homeland and "really just wanting to take their casas, casinos, and factories back that Castro seized in 1960".
After all, if the Chinese-American immigrants formed a cohesive and powerful political lobby and were pushing for a "hard line" towards Beijing...would we accuse them of "wanting to go back to the Mandarins and restoring Imperial rule"?
Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 09:47am
Well...as of today, it looks like Nader's gonna have another go at it in '08. Heard it on Fox news today. You'll probably here it on CNN about a month from now (reluctantly).
No doubt that this was welcome news to Senator Lieberman, who now gets a brief period to rehab all those stab wounds in his back at the hands of his previous "Komrades."
Posted by Sliver at 02/16/2007 @ 10:07am
Posted by MASK 02/16/2007 @ 09:47am | ignore this person
Mask...your handle on all the world issues is trully amazing.
See Jorge Mas Canoza.
You seem to love so called democratic corruption over communist corruption. Hmmmmm. Your Cuban mafia buddies will love your take on this issue.
Posted by OneVote at 02/16/2007 @ 10:09am
Posted by MASK 02/16/2007 @ 09:47am | ignore this person
I rest my case Mask. Sliver is an ardent watcher of Fox News. Fair to say that he is a Bush lapdog? I'll trust my instincts over yours any day. Fox News by the way admits that they promote the Bush agenda. You two ought to meet for a weekend rendevous!
Posted by OneVote at 02/16/2007 @ 10:12am
Onevote...don't be so shallow. I watch all the networks and note the differences in each. BTW....I voted for Clinton '96, Gore '00, Bush '04. I realize that it's your MO to discredit me, so you don't have to respond, but you're assuming too much in the process.
Posted by Sliver at 02/16/2007 @ 10:34am
Posted by MASK 02/16/2007 @ 09:47am | ignore this person
Because you are a know it all, here is a little story you'll love. I am beginning to understand you better. Terrorism is when your enemy hits you, fighting for freedom and righteousness is when you hit your enemy. Mask you are dangerous.
Jorge Mas Canosa (1939 – November 23, 1997) was a Cuban-American activist best known for his strong opposition to Fidel Castro and his leadership of the Cuban-American National Foundation. He was considered by many to be the leading political voice of the Cuban exile community in Miami, Florida.
In a series of interviews with the New York Times, Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban exile paramilitary who claimed responsibility for the bombings at hotels and nightclubs in Cuba in 1997 and is accused of the bombing of Cubana Flight 455, said his activities were directly supported by Jorge Mas Canosa.[1] In 1998 the Cuban government charged The Cuban American National Foundation, which was founded in 1981 at the initiative of the Reagan administration and receives U.S. government funding [2] with the continued financing of anti-Cuban terrorist activities [3]
Source: Wilkpedia
Posted by OneVote at 02/16/2007 @ 10:34am
I agree...Fox leans to the right. Would you admit that CNN, MSNBC, and the other alphabet soup networks lean to the left?
Posted by Sliver at 02/16/2007 @ 10:35am
Posted by MASK 02/16/2007 @ 09:47am | ignore this person
Make you a deal. I won't be shallow if you won't. BTW what happened to your political philosophy? Seems like you really did a 180.
Posted by OneVote at 02/16/2007 @ 10:38am
Not at all. Dole was too old and boorish, Bush was an unknown in 2000, and I feel that his response to 9/11 earned him another term. Besides, Kerry was a stiff,empty suited opportunist with a scary voting record. If you're looking for political purity, fuhgedaboutit.
Posted by Sliver at 02/16/2007 @ 10:43am
Posted by MASK 02/16/2007 @ 09:47am | ignore this person
I would agree that they are following what their target audience (the majority)appears to want at the time, and I find it really pathetic. When we first entered the "War" in Iraq, these stations were pretty much pro war, and now that the tide has turned, they are against the war. Even Joe Scarborough (sp.?) was apologizing last night for supporting the war. I couldn't believe how CNN handled Israel's attack on Lebannon. Talk about bias for Israel. It was just fricking disgusting. Its great that you watch as many stations as you can. All of them are whores to one degree or the other.
Posted by OneVote at 02/16/2007 @ 10:47am
Posted by SLIVER 02/16/2007 @ 10:43am | ignore this person
whoops...last posting was directed to you Sliver
Posted by OneVote at 02/16/2007 @ 10:48am
ONEVOTE...mind if I answer your four posts...as one?
I'm sorry, but are Luis Posada Carriles and Jorge Mas Canosa representative of a MAJORITY of Cuban-Americans?
Seems to be the thrust of your argument. That a few corrupt guys equals "all Cubans in Miami who want to overthrow Castro".
As for SLIVER....If ANY watcher of Fox News is automatically a "Bush supporter", then there are WHOLE lot of progressives, like those who post Fox News stories on Huffington Post, etc.....who are "Bush supporters".
Next time...just ask SLIVER and get an answer (Posted by SLIVER 02/16/2007 @ 10:43am)...don't assume.
After all, I'd never assume you are a supporter of some Democrat or liberal just because you are a progressive.
Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 10:56am
that terrorist Posada is in court now, charged with immigration violations. they won't deport him to Cuba or Venezuela, where he is wanted on charges related to blowing up an airliner, with large loss of life.
it is also important to remember who the Miami cubans are. they are mostly the gangsters that were a part of the Batista regime and their descendants.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2007 @ 11:00am
Posted by SLIVER 02/16/2007 @ 10:43am | ignore this person
Bush's handling of 9/11 is precisely why you shouldn't have voted for him. Total incompetence.
He went after Iraq for reasons other than 9/11 and you know it. Matter of fact, didn't Bush say that Osama wasn't his priority anymore. Sliver...you are in greater danger today because of Bush's action. He has created a spawning ground for anti-US recruits. These people do not forget, and they do not forgive. Mark my words.
Posted by OneVote at 02/16/2007 @ 11:03am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/16/2007 @ 11:00am | ignore this person
Thank goodness there are some folks out there that know whats going on!!
Posted by OneVote at 02/16/2007 @ 11:08am
Posted by MASK 02/16/2007 @ 10:56am | ignore this person
Precisely Mask. That why you let Sliver speak for himself!
Posted by OneVote at 02/16/2007 @ 11:10am
Bush's handling of 9/11 is precisely why you shouldn't have voted for him. Total incompetence.
You may feel that way...good for you. Personally, I saw Clinton's (lack of response) to be most dangerous, resulting in escalating attacks every time. The lack of response to the USS Cole did it for me.
Iraq is a separate issue from 9/11, and had significant Democrat support in Congress, so where is the distinction between parties?
History has not been fully written on Iraq yet, so I'll refrain from judgement until that time comes. Those who have recently been saying we should wrap it up and pull out soon certainly have their points and some credibility. Although the ones who opposed it from the start and have morphed into bashing troops because of it don't sit well with me.
Didn't you see the opposition from CNN and others before we even went into Afghanistan...all the USSR/Afghanistan redux with the claim that we can't win and will need 50,000 body-bags right off the bat?
BTW....what would Kerry have done...after he voted both ways?
Posted by Sliver at 02/16/2007 @ 11:19am
What benefit would the Likud Party gain from a Lieberman investigation of Katrina? Senator Joe serves two flags. Sometimes he must set aside the interests of the American people. It's a wonder that serving two flags still leaves him time to act as a faithful and energetic servant of America's big financial services and insurance companies. A man can only do so much.
Posted by Jeff Deasy at 02/16/2007 @ 11:25am
I'll take these one at a time, because you have always been so nice to me.
"You may feel that way...good for you. Personally, I saw Clinton's (lack of response) to be most dangerous, resulting in escalating attacks every time. The lack of response to the USS Cole did it for me.
the attack on the Cole was a monumental blunder on the part of the navy. sail into the port of a hostile nation and have no ARMED guards posted. what should have Clinton done? invaded Yemen?
"Iraq is a separate issue from 9/11, and had significant Democrat support in Congress, so where is the distinction between parties?"
twentysome dem senators voted against the war, ONE repub senator did. distinction enough for you?
"History has not been fully written on Iraq yet, so I'll refrain from judgement until that time comes. Those who have recently been saying we should wrap it up and pull out soon certainly have their points and some credibility. Although the ones who opposed it from the start and have morphed into bashing troops because of it don't sit well with me."
not fully written yet? you have no problem commenting on anything else, but here you are waiting for what? I don't need history to show me what a disaster that campaign has become. disingenuous. I have seen none of the senators who voted against the war bash the troops. I have seen a lot of bashing of those who don't share Bush's enthusiasm for war.
"Didn't you see the opposition from CNN and others before we even went into Afghanistan...all the USSR/Afghanistan redux with the claim that we can't win and will need 50,000 body-bags right off the bat?"
this was not the prevailing wisdom at the time. we may approach that figure however when we try to withdraw. this will not be a vietnam style withdrawal, this will be more like Napoleons withdrawal from Russia.
"BTW....what would Kerry have done...after he voted both ways?"
we weren't talking about Kerry, but ok, no one knows what Kerry would have done.
Posted by SLIVER 02/16/2007 @ 11:19am | ignore this person
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2007 @ 11:36am
it is also important to remember who the Miami cubans are. they are mostly the gangsters that were a part of the Batista regime and their descendants.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/16/2007 @ 11:00am
WOW, JR......So no problem with somebody who claims that any German alive in 1945 in Germany was a "Nazi"?
Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 1:16pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 02/16/2007 @ 11:10am
I did...if you'll note my post was AFTER he had explained his voting record and why.
My earlier defense of him was based on your ASSUMPTION of his support of Bush....based on NO evidence from his post on that thread.
Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 1:18pm
Mask,
I think you are right that there would be political attacks. There always are political attacks when high profile committee meetings are held.
But the more important issue is that recommendations are made. I see from your email that you recognize the potential for recommendations to be made in spite of the politicking. Does this not then make it necessary for a committee to meet?
After all, if Congress is not there to address pressing issues of the realm, what are they there for anyway? As merely a curb on executive authority? Oh, wait a minute. . . I think we are still waiting for that to happen.
Posted by hhemwm at 02/16/2007 @ 2:27pm
Rio,
That article you posted as a response to me. . . who wrote it? Whose work are you citing? I'd like to know who wrote it before I respond to it.
Posted by hhemwm at 02/16/2007 @ 2:28pm
Rio you quoted this:
"And let's not forget that the mathematical climate models used to forecast future global climate gloom-and-doom don't come close to matching up with historical climate change. How can we reasonably expect them to be predictors of the future climate change? Is it wise to spend trillions of dollars based on such predictions?"
That really makes very little sense when you think about it. How can we compare historical climate change with things that have yet to happen? By that example we can never learn anything or prepare for anything because the future never replicates the past in precise terms.
By the example you quoted it makes little sense to plan for anything including our national defense because we can't compare our predictions with past realities. So, by example: there has never been a nuclear war so why not just disarm our nuclear arsenal?
I doubt you would make that suggestion.
Posted by hhemwm at 02/16/2007 @ 2:32pm
The effects of climate change are unknown, but evidence of climate change does exist historically. Even climate change deniers acknowledge that the earth has gone through dramatic changes in temperature. They just don't want to assign a man-made cause.
What you are insinuating is that because we don't know what will happen and our "models" don't comport with past data then we do nothing. What do you think a "model" is for in the first place? To test hypotheses.
Again, to use the national defense metaphor. Why do you think we have so many strategic plans of attack for nations we don't intend to attack? Because we are considering possibilities and not eventualities.
Climate change is occurring, we just don't know what will come of it. Terrorism is occurring, we just don't know what will come of it.
How can you be gung ho about attacking suspected enemies and yet reject preemptive action on climate change because we can't be absolutely certain of the future.
Your position makes little sense at all.
Posted by hhemwm at 02/16/2007 @ 2:35pm
Posted by HHEMWM 02/16/2007 @ 2:27pm |
I'm just saying let's be honest on BOTH sides.
It is hypocritical to say the Lieberman is blocking a "Katrina Committee" to help Bush...and then say "Oh, but a 'Katrina Investigation' is JUST about trying to make sure the problems are fixed and NOT some venue for partisan attacks".
Let's lay it out on the table...Joe doesn't want the hearing cuz it would hurt Bush...Ms vH WANTS the hearing cuz it would hurt Bush.
Posted by Mask at 02/16/2007 @ 3:29pm
Mask,
If you say so.
My point is that I want the hearing. I am not concerned with Lieberman or Ms. Vandern Heuvel's aims.
Posted by hhemwm at 02/16/2007 @ 6:40pm
Katrina,
GOP Joe is a megalomaniac and has got to go. Democrat leaders should have listened to the voters that determined GOP Joe was not a Democrat.Our leaders should immediately strip him off all committee seats. He is not and will never be a Democrat.
Posted by pansycritter at 02/16/2007 @ 8:35pm
All you guys with something against Joe....it's a good thing he didn't become the Veep in 2000. Whew!
Posted by Sliver at 02/16/2007 @ 9:01pm
All you guys with something against Joe....it's a good thing he didn't become the Veep in 2000. Whew!
Posted by SLIVER 02/16/2007 @ 9:01pm | ignore this person
the vice president used to be a largely ceremonial office, as most presidents before Bush kept their vice pres at arms length and far away from the levers of power. only a non entity such as Bush was manipulated by his vice pres so that the Bush presidency is a Scheinpresidency. Bush is merely the mouth piece, who is run by people far smarter than he.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2007 @ 9:21pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/16/2007 @ 11:36am | ignore this person
no answer to this sliver? you're no sliver, you're not even a splinter.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2007 @ 9:22pm
Hurricane Katrina is a wake up call that centralized governments can do only so much. It's foolish fantasy to believe the federal government can solve all of our problems. Sadly, KVH thinks there's no limit to a centralized government's power. She is so intoxicated by the dream of socialism, it corrupts her ability to reason.
Posted by Person at 02/16/2007 @ 10:01pm
It's foolish fantasy to believe the federal government can solve all of our problems.Posted by PERSON 02/16/2007 @ 10:01pm | ignore this person
but Iraq is another matter, there the US can turn water into wine, right?
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/16/2007 @ 10:43pm
Posted by MASK 02/16/2007 @ 1:18pm | ignore this person
"I'm sorry, but are Luis Posada Carriles and Jorge Mas Canosa representative of a MAJORITY of Cuban-Americans?
Seems to be the thrust of your argument. That a few corrupt guys equals "all Cubans in Miami who want to overthrow Castro". "
A few corrupt guys? Don't forget that these dudes are the representatives of the Cuban Nationalists and that Jorge was going to be installed as President. CIA liked them alot too! So much love!!
Now, I would agree that Jorge may not have represented the ideology or morality of all Cuban Nationalists. You are right there. This is similar to the response of Iran to US belligerance in that they, at least to date, don't entirely blame US citizens for our President's behavior and realize that he is borderline, if not crossed over completely. I am not sure how long they are going to feel that way. Vladimir Putin has had enough of Bush imperialism and is drawing the line. I think Putin watches the news too, and realizes that Americans are being held hostage by the military-industrial complex, and that he does not believe that the Bush agenda represents the attitude of "all" American people. Putin by the way has a 75% approval rating (may be biased of course, he controls the media) versus Bush at 25%. Russians remember the Cold War very well.
Posted by OneVote at 02/17/2007 @ 07:08am
Posted by SLIVER 02/16/2007 @ 11:19am | ignore this person
I don't know what Kerry would have done. I agree he was pretty wishy washy. All the folks that voted for Iraq War should be held accountable for their vote....and when I fault Bush for failed policy, Congress needs to step up to plate to accept part of blame.
Believe me. I am not soft on terrorism at all. I just don't think that Iraq was the way to do it. US has long believed in its inherent right to Middle East oil - see Carter Doctrine - and I think our foreign policy is carry forward of a long history of the US doing nothing on energy policy to lessen dependence of foreign oil, but rather encouraging it. A good part of resentment in the Middle East is our totally biased support of Israel at the expense of diplomacy with the Muslim world, and support of the energy cartel, with which exception of certain countries like Kuwait, does little to spread oil wealth around. I think many Muslims feel totally disenfranchised from the natural wealth of their respective countries, and when they look to point the finger of blame, they see US energy companies totally in bed with their own totalitarian rulers. Condi Rice was an advisor to Chevron oil before her appointment, and she even has an oil tanker named after her. hmmmmmm.........................
I think Saddam could have been taken care of at far less cost in human blood and treasure. You didn't need to invade Iraq to get rid of him, a la Pat Robertson. However, George Bush senior had the intelligence to realize that if he took out Saddam, there would be an inevitable power vaccuum that would destabilize the country and create civil war. Remember Saddam held Iranian Shia expansionist interest in check.
I think we need a military presence in the Middle East, and that we should have focused on securing Afghanistan. Now it looks like we may lose the fight there too. If I thought there was a prayer to US securing Iraq, reluctantly, I would support that, but I don't see it improving... and the US can ill afford this war. I didn't support the war in Iraq to begin with.
I can't remember coverage of CNN at beginning of the war in Afghanistan. I do support our effort there. I do believe that US has a strategic interest there. You can certainly see how wishy washy network TV is. Lately, CNN and MSNBC think the Anna Nicole Smith death is news! Unreal. I don't see how they can they can pretend to be a serious news source when they do People Magazine crap like this. I am pissed on how they smeared the life of that NASA astronaut for several nights in their lust for the advertising dollar. Shameful. Why don't they take on some politicians at little more often? You know the answer to that. It might offend our corporate sponsors.
Posted by OneVote at 02/17/2007 @ 07:56am
Now, I would agree that Jorge may not have represented the ideology or morality of all Cuban Nationalists. You are right there.
Posted by ONEVOTE 02/17/2007 @ 07:08am
Sorry, OV...but after weeding out you trying to reiterate your point on those TWO Cubans...and extraneous non sequiters about Iran and Putin...
the above is all that really matters...hehe.
Posted by Mask at 02/17/2007 @ 08:03am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/16/2007 @ 9:21pm
Not really, JR....after all, if Gore had won in 2000 and was re-elected in 2004...
by tradition, VICE-PRES. JOE LIEBERMAN would be the presumptive nominee in 2008! (And "The Nation" would probably be pushing his sole "viable" alternative...Hillary!)
Posted by Mask at 02/17/2007 @ 08:05am
Posted by MASK 02/17/2007 @ 08:03am | ignore this person
All that matters in your mind Mask isn't really the relevant test is it?
Posted by OneVote at 02/17/2007 @ 09:35am
but Iraq is another matter, there the US can turn water into wine, right?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/16/2007 @ 10:43pm | ignore this person
Not by a long shot. But maybe its possible to start the ball rolling on reforming the Middle East. It's apparently incapable of fixing itself. Maybe there's nothing that even the mighty USA can do about it.
Posted by Person at 02/17/2007 @ 10:12am
Lieberman's more than disappointing. I agree with the posters who advise he have his committee chairpersonships removed since he's no Democrat.
Posted by lewwelge at 02/17/2007 @ 10:23am
"But maybe its possible to start the ball rolling on reforming the Middle East".
by destroying Iraq we have set the ball rolling alright. the region has always been at the not so tender mercy of meddling superpowers. you would do well to read the history of that region.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/17/2007 @ 10:38am
Posted by PERSON 02/17/2007 @ 10:12am | ignore this person
REFORMING THE MIDDLE EAST???????????????????
Golly, I thought thats what the British, French, and Americans have been trying to do for a century?
How about we start the ball rolling on reforming our foreign policy?
Posted by OneVote at 02/17/2007 @ 11:40am
REFORMING THE MIDDLE EAST???????????????????
this was the cover story. in reality they had only their own narrow interests at heart.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/17/2007 @ 2:20pm
I didn't know a man life-work was suddenly negotiable because he was challenged in a Democratic primary. But, Joe will negotiate. Joe is newly in-love with himself and the back slapping from former rivals. It is rather sickening to hear others debate Joe's actions in terms of who supported him in the primary. You support the notion that Joe doesn't hold an office, but rather Joe IS an office. This is exactly what is wrong with Washington and Joe is the perfect menifestation of the sense of entitlement. He should have thanked voters for a wake-up call, the challenge and continued his work as before. Not Joe. Joe viewed the Democratic process as a personal insult. Joe's Senate seat is personal to Joe. Joe now has his list and he views the powers of his constituents office as his own little Greek tragedy. Joe is supposed to be in office for noble reasons. It is clear that his office is now a negotaible instrument.
Posted by Marko-Farko at 02/17/2007 @ 5:19pm
nicely put, Marko. he is a politician.I don't think Diogenes would find what he was looking for if he confined his search to politicians.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/17/2007 @ 7:41pm
Yeah, and I wonder how his hubristic downfall will fall out in the ongoing fall-out of this failed war whose only success has been crude oil price support.
Posted by lewwelge at 02/17/2007 @ 8:41pm
Hey Rio,
>> Wow! Joe Lieberman whom the Demoncrats deserted like Rats
Your talk of "rats" is misguided. Lieberman chose to continue supporting the neocons even after it's been clearly established that the war was sold on a flawed rationale and that the current administration planned poorly. De facto, Lieberman chose not to represent the Democratic voters.
There's nothing "rat"-ish about Democratic voters voting out Lieberman during the primary...unless you think the incumbent is always entitled to renomination..?
Posted by wunsacon at 02/18/2007 @ 04:55am
>> It's foolish fantasy to believe the federal government can solve all of our problems.
Nobody expects the federal government to solve all our problems. (Sounds like you're arguing against one of the liberal straw men often quoted on right-wing radio.)
But, people -- people not blinded by loyalty -- do expect (a) the government to fund levees over tax breaks and (b) the president to respond when his FEMA boss tells him a catastrophe is in the making. We also expect him not to talk about rebuilding Trent Lott's oceanfront vacation home at a time while people are still dying in the flood.
But, hey, how many people supported a president who kept reading My Pet Goat after learning that "America is under attack"? Plenty. One of this country's problems is the low standards/expectations of many of its voters. As long as so many people expect so little, that's what we'll get.
Do you want our government to be more effective or not? Demand better.
Posted by wunsacon at 02/18/2007 @ 05:15am
Do you want our government to be more effective or not? Demand better.
Posted by WUNSACON 02/18/2007 @ 05:15am |
With a few exceptions I would love for our government to be less effective.
Posted by Person at 02/18/2007 @ 06:58am
I wouldn't mind our government being less efficient at wholesale killing. Effectiveness, on the other hand, involves an aesthetic judgement more than a definite quantitative measure of a/some phenomenon, eh? And I don't think we're deserving of, or entitled to(!), error of any sort, from any quarter, Person.
Posted by lewwelge at 02/18/2007 @ 08:50am
Posted by LEWWELGE 02/18/2007 @ 08:50am
You lost me on that one. Effectiveness is a judgment call? It's not, of course. I'm saying government is too effective in our lives, it's too effectual, it's capable of producing too many effects. I'm one of those whacko's who doesn't like a powerful, centralized government.
Posted by Person at 02/18/2007 @ 12:46pm
A specific practice is efficiently accomplished temporally and quantitatively while that same practice is only effective to the extent that its timeliness, appropriateness, AND quality of defined vision/purpose/mission is ideally made manifest.
"Supply" can be efficiently profferred. "Demand" indicates effective suggestion/solicitation of desire.
Hmm...attempting to articulate/differentiate the meaning of "efficiency" and "effectiveness" leaves me wanting an example I'm unable to conjur. Lo sciento amigos.
Posted by lewwelge at 02/18/2007 @ 4:55pm
Ayudame, por favor.
Posted by lewwelge at 02/18/2007 @ 4:56pm
MASK,
Agreed. Joe Lieberman will pay back Bush and his people, IN SPADES............
Posted by POSEIDON at 02/18/2007 @ 8:36pm
Katrina Vanden Heuvel,
TIME TO HOLD YOU AND THE NATION MAGAZINE ACCOUNTABLE FOR LYING TO YOUR READERS AND SUPPORTERS:
How did I know you and the Nation Magazine would sell out, Katrina? Of course I knew you would, because the only thing you truly cared about was for the Democrats to take control of Congress (for all the good it will do America). How do I know this? Because not only is ENDING THE IRAQ WAR not listed first on your top ten to do list, it is not even on the list. Do you really think that your Alice in Wonderland agenda has a snowball's chance in Hell of passing without ending the money-pit called Iraq? It seems as if the Kevin Zeeses, the Dennis Kucinichs, the Ralph Naders of the world, (a man you blamed for the Sore-Loserman ticket losing in 2000) and their allies/supporters are the only people with microphones and/or platforms left who still possess any common sense in this country.
Normally I would find it hard to believe,(but in this country having a college degree does not equate to having a true intellect), that you can't make the connection between the endless spending in Iraq and the contstraints that it WILL PUT ON DOMESTIC SPENDING at home. College for all, public financing of campaigns, healthcare for all, those cost big bucks which the treasury does not and will never have so long as the bill for the Iraq War is being footed by the American taxpayer. I always had you pegged right, Katrina, you are one of those INSIDE THE BELTWAY(NEW YORK BELTWAY) TYPES that is simply out for your own gratification, whatever that entails. You can't be on the side of the American people without calling for an end to the Iraq War. I don't know why you made that pledge in your magazine before the November 2006 elections when you knew the entire time that you had no intentions of following through with it.................I hope you sleep well at night because NOW ALONG WITH BUSH AND HIS ALLIES IN CONGRESS I AM HOLDING YOU PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH AND EVERY DEATH THAT HAPPENS TO EVERY AMERICAN SOLDIER/THEIR ALLIES AND EVERY IRAQI TILL THIS WAR ENDS.............
Time is not on your side, our side, or anyone else's side. Time is of the essence and the world has no time to lose. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will buy Bush's war by not cutting off funding. And when they do that, they will FALL in November 2008.
KATRINA, TIME FOR YOU TO TURN UP THE HEAT ON THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS AND IF THEY REFUSE TO HEED THE CALL FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ, THEN PULL THE PLUG ON THEIR MAJORITY IN NOVEMBER 2008.
Posted by POSEIDON at 02/18/2007 @ 8:41pm
You're saying The Nation is inefficient in promoting an effective anti-war position, eh Poseidon? And I feel your frustration when there appears no effective anti-war movement to even inefficiently dissent against this new world order's imperial presidency.
With no one seriously countering hyper-capitalism's suzereignty, our volunteer armed services and repressed and repressive authorities being Tweedle-dum to the Tweedle-dee of hedonistic Hollywood voyeurism, I'm just trying to "make it through the night." Rest well and thanks for the rancor of resistance.
Posted by lewwelge at 02/18/2007 @ 10:10pm
Posted by LEWWELGE 02/18/2007 @ 10:10pm | ignore this person
Thank You. A kindred spirit. Haven't seen one of those in quite some time. Rest well, friend...........
Posted by POSEIDON at 02/18/2007 @ 10:53pm
All we are asking Joe to do, is to do what he said he would do.
Posted by glbanks at 02/19/2007 @ 08:16am
Posted by ONEVOTE 02/17/2007 @ 07:56am | ignore this person
Good post. And one that I generally agree with. We may differ on a few things however.
and I think our foreign policy is carry forward of a long history of the US doing nothing on energy policy to lessen dependence of foreign oil, but rather encouraging it. A good part of resentment in the Middle East is our totally biased support of Israel at the expense of diplomacy with the Muslim world,
Lessen dependence on foreign oil by first setting up the infrastructure at home to deal with a stoppage of foreign imports. It wouldn't serve as a permanent solution, but would be a hell of a lot more useful than a few days supply in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The only reason that the Saudi cartel is still pumping oil to us is because of our forces in their country to protect it. Tap our own sources first, then we can call a spade a spade. As it stands now, the environmentalists are holding us hostage to foreign oil, while visions of sugar-plum Ethanol are dancing through their heads. Forget about that alternative, as it's more costly to manufacture, and will drive up the prices on most of our food.
Second...diplomacy in the Muslim world (read: Arab Muslim world) has never been effective ever, from the Carter administration to the present day. I personally don't think that the Israelis or the US can solve anything diplomatically with most of those countries. Especially in places like Afghanistan where we're dealing with a 7th century mentality that exists to resent our influence. Most of the hatred there is religious and not political. Lacking any sort of balanced media filter the public at large becomes easily indoctrinated into believing that all their failures and short-comings are caused by the West. The Koran itself makes reference that it is honorable to deceive your enemies. Therefore any previous peace accords are not honored in the Muslim world and victimhood gets media attention. Arafat played this quite masterfully.
Which brings me back to the first point...becoming less dependent on foreign oil gives us the political leverage to avoid getting involved with the ME as much as we have to. The sooner the better, but with no magic alternative source as of now, we need to develop our petroleum resources domestically in the first place. The question then becomes, have we then created an extreme underclass in the ME that envies even the Third World? With not much capital except for oil exports, which have now been refused by one of their largest customers (us), would we galvanize a true coalition of impoverished nations to focus their forces against us?? Do we buy their oil, or send them international aid?
Sort of like the pizza shop owner who's continually irked by the picky demands of a customer, but never shit-talks the guy until he quits being a customer.
Posted by Sliver at 02/20/2007 @ 10:54pm