A nice tidbit of information about that jerk Joe Lieberman.

From the NYTimes blog called The Caucus, we have a post called “Lieberman Calls Liberal Democratic Base ‘Paranoid’”. An interesting quote:

“In the speech, Senator Lieberman referred to his primary loss, and denounced the anti-war base of the Democratic party that worked hard to defeat him last year. Despite the fact that he overcame that opposition and won re-election, leading Democrats and many of the presidential candidates, consider the 2006 election results — which gave Democrats majorities in the House and Senate — a mandate against the Iraq war.”

I just wanted to clarify something. Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut. He ran as an independent in the general. A small percentage of Democrats supported for him, but most of Lieberman’s voters were Republican.

If you want an idea of how out of sync Lieberman is with his constituency and the “Democratic party” with which he still caucuses, here it is: In the 2006 general elections Joe Lieberman lost to Ned Lamont on his home turf in New Haven, CT. He couldn’t even win in his own 25th ward, the most local locality (a couple of miles by a couple of miles) in politics, the equivalent of losing in your backyard or having your family vote against you. There should be no mistake about it, “Bush’s favorite Democrat” was in fact elected by Republicans.

There’s an old saying that “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t after you.” It’s interesting that Lieberman chose to call the liberal Democrats “paranoid”, since 1) He seems to be the one that thinks the entire world is out to get him, and 2) Somebody was actually out to get him, it’s just that it wasn’t Ahmedinejad, Iran, Hizbollah, or the “totalitarian forces of radical Islam,” it was the Democratic Party trying toss him out of office.

A change in format.

Well, this blog began as a place for me and a friend to argue about the election and politics in general. Things change. You might already be aware that I’m the only person who has posted so far. It now looks like my good friend from Leb’ will not be able to blog on ToVote at all because of a legal and contractual obligation (also, working 70-80 hours a week). All the best to him, since he’s doing both what he wants to be doing and what he’s good at, and somehow manages to get paid for it. I might try to draft another contributer(s), but for the time being, I’ll be playing this piece solo. I hope this isn’t too much of a disappointment for the millions of readers ToVote has already attracted, but that’s life. Keep it real, and please check back again soon. I have a bunch to post that’ll go up later tonight or early tomorrow.

for(John Edwards==Hillary Clinton) {printf(“Either way, the same bad candidate!\n”);}

John Edwards has pretty much become a caricature. Try as he might he just can’t seem to keep his voice below a prolonged yell, generally informing us all about what we already know, that there’s an enormous gap between poor and rich in America(rich like all the money he made as a lawyer).

Even worse is that while Edwards badmouths Hillary Clinton for her healthcare plan, campaign contributions, Iraq War vote, and future Iraq plan, his healthcare plan, his Iraq War vote, and his plan for the future of Iraq are…the same as Hillary Clinton’s. And he’s taken money from state lobbyist and “industry groups.” And when he points fingers at Hillary and claims she’s running for the status quo, Edwards just wants us all to forget that he ran as John Kerry‘s running-mate in 2004. You won’t find much more of a bland, status quo, establishment politician out there than John Kerry. But don’t worry, Edwards has changed. He’s changed his entire political outlook, on wealth, on war, on health care, all in the span of three years! I wonder what prompted his conversion?

Destroying hearts, minds, and credibility: embedded anthropologists in Iraq

I recently learned that the “Network of Concerned Anthropologists” is calling on all anthropologists (and anthropology students) to pledge not to work with the U.S. military or in any counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq. Hopefully at its next convention the American Anthropological Association will follow suit and ban its members from such activity. The AAA, like the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association, has already voted to prohibit its members from engaging in any form of torture (the American Psychological Association has, unfortunately, not yet passed an outright ban, but prohibits its members from specific interrogation methods) in response to reports of psychologists’ involvement in torture at Guantanamo Bay. These organizations take their reputations seriously, and prefer to be associated with scientific advancement and health, rather than prisoner abuse and torture. They should also disassociate from the Iraq War.

Nice one, Fred

CNN – “We will not be a safer country, we will not be a safer America if the whole world watches us being defeated by a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices,” Thompson said.

Would the gentlemen who’s running for president prefer we be defeated by old men who rattle sabers and shoot their mouths off? The irony is that I’m sure a large part of the insurgents Fred Thompson is referring to are “kids” or younger people who’ve a) become completely disenfranchised with their country’s journey toward “democracy” b) had one or more relatives that have been insulted, humiliated, dishonored, harassed, beaten, shot, or blown up by our “kids.” Even better, the “kids” who are producing and planting IED’s are apparently pretty damn smart. So smart that they continue to develop new models for explosives that become more deadly and more technologically sophisticated as time goes on. Further reading on what some of those “kids” are doing at John Robb’s Global Guerrillas site.

What is the real message here?

From the New York Times editorial section:

“Democrats have failed repeatedly to end the Iraq war or to substantially change its course. Now they face another test. Mr. Bush will try to ram his spending request through Congress before Christmas, using the impending holiday to create a false sense of urgency. They must resist that, and try again to use their power of the purse to force the president to begin serious planning for a swift and orderly exit from Iraq. They cannot have it both ways — opposing the war and enabling Mr. Bush to keep it going full speed and full cost ahead.

If the Republicans block that, then the Democrats must at least insist on the fiscal prudence that Mr. Bush and his party claim to believe in so fervently. Representative David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is already calling for a war tax. That, at least, would be a more honest and responsible way to ensure that all Americans share the financial burden of this war.” (10/25/07)

Will Bush launch a Kurdish front in Iraq?

An Australian paper, the Herald Sun, unfortunately had to release this chilling piece yesterday. President Bush is apparently considering the possibility of lobbing a few cruise missiles at the Kurdish PKK, who are holed up in Iraq’s northern mountainous region, if it looks like the only thing that will stave off a Turkish border crossing. This is what I call a bad idea.

Israeli foreign minister claims Iranian nukes pose little threat

Haaretz:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published Friday.

Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran.

The article also reveals for the first time a document Livni prepared and sent to Olmert a few months after the Second Lebanon War proposing a new division of labor between the two. “Enclosed is a proposal for work procedures between us, with the aim of providing an answer to Israel’s strategic needs and facilitating early planning and the formulation of coordinated Israeli positions … within the framework of cooperative relations, full transparency and continuous mutual updates,” wrote Livni.

She described in the document a number of required arrangements: “The prime minister and the foreign minister will hold regular work meetings at least once a week.” In an allusion to her absence form critical discussions during the war in Lebanon, she wrote: “The foreign minister will be invited to meetings with the prime minister on security matters and other meetings with serious implications.”

The most important part of the document relates to the talks with the Palestinians. Livni wrote: “The foreign minister shall represent the prime minister and the government of Israel, and will act on their behalf as the director of the dialogue with the relevant Palestinian representatives, and in accordance with the policy and methods to be coordinated in advance with the prime minster, while keeping him informed.”

It is reasonable to assume that Olmert’s decision to appoint Livni as head of the negotiating team with the Palestinians at the Annapolis summit is connected to the document.

The Haaretz article also reveals for the first time a draft of a document prepared for Livni by her advisor, Dr. Tal Becker of the Foreign Ministry, who is slated to serve as a senior member of the negotiating team with the Palestinians. The draft, named the Diplomatic Horizon, is pessimistic about the chances of reaching a permanent solution in the near future.

Friedman’s “tribal dance” around military aggresion

It’s Wednesday, and that means another Friedman column! Here’s a good start:

“Indeed, I continue to believe that everyone has us where they want us in Iraq: We’re holding up the floor for Iraqi politicians to do their endless tribal dance[italics mine]; we are bogged down and within missile range of Iran, so if we try to use any military force to disrupt Tehran’s nuclear program we will pay a huge price; and as long as we are trapped in Iraq, we will never even think about promoting reform elsewhere in the Arab world — to the relief of all Arab autocrats.”

First, note the italics. Although it has been common, accepted practice to use terms like “tribal” and “clan” in reference to Iraqis their extended family structures, Friedman’s usage of “tribal dance” reeks of old-fashioned colonialist rhetoric. There’s an implication in the phrase that Iraq’s chaos is attributable to Iraqi politicians who are too incompetent, too lazy, too backward to find a political in their country. Not only that, but these politicians are somehow benefiting from the chaos and American occupation. Because politicians love when a foreign military invades, destroys critical infastructure, slaughters a few hundred thousand people, and dissolves the governmental and social structures that keep the country together. Why should it be so difficult for these Iraqi guys to come up with a political solution so we can leave the country and purge our sins?

1 million flee Southern California

AP: “Faced with unrelenting winds whipping wildfires into a frenzy across Southern California, firefighters all but conceded defeat Tuesday to an unstoppable force that has already chased nearly a million people away.

Unless the shrieking Santa Ana winds subside, and that’s not expected for at least another day, fire crews say they can do little more than try to wait it out and react – tamping out spot fires and chasing ribbons of airborne embers to keep new fires from flaring.”

CNN: “Military officials also warned about 19,000 military families that they might need to leave if fire approaches. A cruiser, destroyer and two frigates are in port at Naval Base San Diego for evacuating families, if necessary.” (via Wonkette)

I pray that I’m not being too cynical, but let’s just hope that the 1 million people being evacuated from Southern California get better treatment from the government than the ones who fled or were stuck in New Orleans and Alabama during Katrina. If the fires continue and the evacuees’ 350,000-some homes are destroyed we very well could be looking at a situation where there are hundreds of thousands of people who will have no where to go after the fires have subsided. Thankfully after Katrina we don’t have to worry about an under reaction to the situation like this. Nobody in the government would dare question a disaster response like this. We should be wondering, however, if our National Guard and military forces have the proper personnel and equipment for a natural disaster like this given the general state of things over the past several years.