Joe Lieberman, Jane Harman, and other “centrist” Democrats...
Joementum and Crackpot Harman are "centrists?"
According to whom?
Posted by Christopher at December 8, 2006 11:19 AMI understand one of my senators has just made a speech about how criminal acts may have been perpetrated by this president,
and then says he doesn't think that bush is a liar or a traitor.
Mr. Smith goes to Washington, and comes up half right. Mr. Smith, protecting your election chances is one thing. But comparing your vote for Clinton's impeachment, and your not believing this one is a traitor is hard for me to stomach. You must be quite delusional to make such a statement as you condemn the criminal.
Are there that many definitions of traitor sir?
Who could ever have imagined Condi sucking at her job as SOS? Especially after the heckuva job she did as her husband's National Security Advisor.
Note the words describing her plan as "coherent and effective".....well if one defines "effective" as fueling the fire and adding to the lack of US credibility and increased US hatred in the world.
Posted by emal at December 8, 2006 11:43 AMThe United States should engage Iran, Mr. Baker contended, if only to reveal its “rejectionist attitude”; it should try to “flip the Syrians”; and it should begin a renewed quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians that, he maintained, would help convince Arab moderates that America was not all about invasions and regime change.
This would be the same "rejectionist" Iranians who suggested years ago that the US and Iran should engage in face to face negotiations about all outstanding issues between the two countries, including the nuclear issue. The U.S. response was to reprimand the Swiss diplomat who embarassed the President by bringing this unwelcome proposal to public attention, thus forcing the administration to potentially look like they were rejecting an Iranian olive branch.
Of course the servile media ignored this issue and the whole affair was quickly consigned to the dustbin of history, but it is illustrative of how things work inside the beltway.
Now, because Iran rejects negotiations with preconditions that basically concede all areas to be negotiated before the talks even start, they are "rejectionist."
NOTE that the real purpose of asking Iran to help isn't to actually offer them anything that might induce them to help, it's to provoke them into rejecting the proposal, so we can "reveal its rejectionist attitude”and thus prove that we were right not to negotiate!
Sounds like a brilliant stategy!
Posted by at December 8, 2006 11:44 AMyeah, the same Iran whose leader recently suggested that the US pull its troops out of Iraq and use the billions we are wasting over there to help out the citizens of our own country.....what a wacko.
Posted by T2 at December 8, 2006 11:49 AM"detriment of our troops"? Cannon fodder can suffer due to detrimental policies?
Posted by steve duncan at December 8, 2006 11:52 AMDeadeye Dick (never much of an economist) clearly thinks that the US economy can continue to bear up under the hemorraging red ink the Iraq occupation is generating, and that our ground forces can hold up under the increasing strain, at least until he's out of there.
Apres Moi le Deluge, Deadeye's new bon mot.
Actual negotiation with Iran would involve granting concessions to them---troop withdrawals, affirming the legitimacy of the regime, stopping the sanctions talk for their nuclear program.
And Deadeye and Nero simply aren't EVER going to eat shit like that---certainly not to stabilize the region after their bellicose adventure, get our troops home, allow us to refocus on Afghanistan and Osama and cut our enormous losses. Hell, if they could, they'd still like to attack Iran!
Like petulant rich children, they simply will not do what they don't want to do---and the consequences be damned.
Posted by euzoius at December 8, 2006 12:25 PMThe Democratic leadership in the House and Senate will have to address why those in their own caucus are enabling the continuing failure of this foreign policy to the detriment of our troops and our national interest.
The decay is deep and extends to the top.
News Report:
Pelosi Attacks Iraq's Prime Minister For Not Supporting Israel's Destruction Of Lebanon--July 25, 2006
"Iraqi Prime Minister's Maliki's criticism of Israel's right to defend itself is unacceptable," Pelosi said in a statement. "At the White House this morning, Mr. Maliki did not retreat from his comments on Israel and once again failed to criticize Hamas and Hezbollah's terrorist activities. "Unless Mr. Maliki disavows his critical comments of Israel and condemns terrorism, it is inappropriate to honor him with a joint meeting of Congress."
Posted by Don Bacon at December 8, 2006 12:41 PMBTW, is Baker angling to be named "Special Envoy for Iraq Policy" so Condo get on with her shoe-buying in Europe?
Because recommending that she do real hard-work diplomacy is like recommending Deadeye to teach gun safety to boy scouts.
Posted by euzoius at December 8, 2006 01:19 PM