Democrats win in the U.S elections -Bush Trashed! (opinions thread)

flogen

That's probably the biggest reason the Dems now hold the House, but stuff like the Foley scandal has also discredited the Reps amongst their religious base, so while they didn't vote for the Dems, they didn't vote for the Reps either.

It's worth nothing that there are plenty of conservative Dems getting seats in both the Senate and House, so it's not like there's been a liberal wave that has swept across America; and look at the success of Liebermann as proof that while supporting the war has dented many candidates it's not the only thing they vote on.

RedPlanet

Forgetabout the war in Iraq.
I'm just looking forward to the impeachment hearings and investigations into corruption and cronysim.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should spend most of their remaining days in the dock. Or trying to avoid it. (imo)

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

I'm at a loss to find a Democrat that says they are going to end the war anytime soon.

So?
Point being,this war got Bushes party turfed out.There'll be no funds for the invasion of Iran or whatever other neo con crazy plan is out there.
Point being Americans voted for a re evaluation of whats going on and knew that would only happen if they voted Democrat.
Point also being, that Democrats now have the power to order congressional investigations that would otherwise be stalled by Republicans.

Pulling out of Iraq in the morning , now that they are there isnt practical yet.

I know you're forever dispondent of your own country sovtek but Gore would never have gone into Iraq as Clinton wouldn't.
They wouldnt have went out of their way to try (and partially succeed) to convince the U.S public of the need to go into Iraq.

The cloak dagger and magicians wand for Bush has stopped working.
Faith in human nature to see things as wrong when they are done wrong has been somewhat restored today.

flogen

RedPlanet wrote:

Forgetabout the war in Iraq.
I'm just looking forward to the impeachment hearings and investigations into corruption and cronysim.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should spend most of their remaining days in the dock. Or trying to avoid it. (imo)

Won't happen, Rumsfeld has a good chance of being pushed (he'll step down on personal reasons, be praised as a great man by Bush, who will close the door and say 'thank fúck he's gone').
Other than that there won't be an impeachment, the Democrats can't be seen to stifle progress, because the Reps will say they're making the country less safe.

All the Dems have now (and it's still important) is the ability to shout louder when they question policy, and they will have some investigatory roles too, but again they'll be careful not to look like they're tearing the country in two.

sovtek

Tristrame wrote:

So?
Point being,this war got Bushes party turfed out.There'll be no funds for the invasion of Iran or whatever other neo con crazy plan is out there.
Point being Americans voted for a re evaluation of whats going on and knew that would only happen if they voted Democrat.
Point also being, that Democrats now have the power to order congressional investigations that would otherwise be stalled by Republicans.

Pulling out of Iraq in the morning , now that they are there isnt practical yet.

I know you're forever dispondent of your own country sovtek but Gore would never have gone into Iraq as Clinton wouldn't.
They wouldnt have went out of their way to try (and partially succeed) to convince the U.S public of the need to go into Iraq.

The cloak dagger and magicians wand for Bush has stopped working.
Faith in human nature to see things as wrong when they are done wrong has been somewhat restored today.

My point is that you shouldn't your breath that much is going to change. Nancy Pelosi has already dropped impeachment, many dems talk about more troops in Iraq, more support for Israel and maybe a "dignified" exit from Iraq...someday (worked so well for Nixon didnit).
A little point underlying that is that as far as I can tell, democracy isn't working.

sovtek

Tristrame wrote:

Pulling out of Iraq in the morning , now that they are there isnt practical yet.

There is nothing practical in what's going on there now.

Manic Moran

free2fly wrote:

With the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate, do you think that the American people have finally spoken out against George W. Bush and the war in Iraq?

I think the answer to that is somewhere between 'no' and 'not effectively'

For all the talk of Iraq, the Republicans would have still won at least the Senate if it weren't for the scandals such as Foley's Page Boys or the Abramoff deal. It was that which killed them, not Iraq.

In the meantime, Bush has made it perfectly clear that he's not going to call the troops back. Congress cannot force him to do so. They can paralyse the budget, but ultimately if Bush doesn't order the Pentagon to move troops, they stay, whether they are given funds by Congress or not. So now you have Congresscritters with a choice between either refusing to fund the troops, or paying up anyway. They can also make trouble in other ways "We refuse to pass your new Domestic Social Development Budget unless you pull the troops back", but I think Bush has made it perfectly clear he believes the nation's priority is the War on Terror. If maintaining the nation's stance costs him every other program in order to stay in Iraq, I think he'll do it.

NTM

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

My point is that you shouldn't your breath that much is going to change. Nancy Pelosi has already dropped impeachment, many dems talk about more troops in Iraq, more support for Israel and maybe a "dignified" exit from Iraq...someday (worked so well for Nixon didnit).
A little point underlying that is that as far as I can tell, democracy isn't working.

Support for Israel has always been an American thing.
What is there to impeach from an American point of view?

As for a dignified exit from Iraq..It's either a good idea to withdraw in the morning (irrespective of the whys and wherefores of getting there) or it isn't.
It isn't.

There is nothing practical in what's going on there now.

It's easy to write one line like that.
The fact of the matter is,it would be likely to be all out sectarian warfare if there was a withdrawal in the morning.
Native security services couldn't cope yet.

Theres nothing new in that,we are where we are-Gore wouldnt have had it come to this and neither would Clinton.
Trouble is un doing the mess isn't as simple as a change in the U.S lower house,it takes a process now and thats Bush's fault.

metrovelvet

Tristrame wrote:

Which means chelsea's vote counts-not that her Mum needed it.

Who needs a vote when you have 30 million to spend on a campaign?

Tristrame wrote:

I know you're forever dispondent of your own country sovtek but Gore would never have gone into Iraq as Clinton wouldn't

Oh no he just bombed them.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Moriarty

Quite possibly true Manic, but would the republican party follow him down the road to electoral no-mans land?

flogen

fair point Moriarty; this result may be what saves the Republicans in 2008; they've had 12 years of House leadership or a clear Senate lead since 1992 and their electoral machine has been so polished in the past 6+ years that they probably felt unstoppable.
This election sends a clear message that something the reps are doing isn't sitting well with the public, so they'll need to moderate slightly to counteract... it could even influence their choice of Presidential candidate (John McCain looking more likely than ever now).
Had the Republican administration had no 2 year warning, and had they continued on the obviously unpopular path, they may have found out the hard way; by losing the top job.

RedPlanet

Tristrame wrote:

What is there to impeach from an American point of view?

Illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
Sure what was Clinton impeached for?
Oh yeah, lying about Monica Lewzinski:rolleyes:

If the Dems take both houses, and if they have a bit of guts, they'll go after those sonsabitches with a Full Metal Jacket!

flogen

RedPlanet wrote:

Illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy
Sure what was Clinton impeached for?
Oh yeah, lying about Monica Lewzinski:rolleyes:

But Bush is asserting that it is legal; the Supreme Court will have to rule on it first.

metrovelvet

RedPlanet wrote:

Illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

How soon we forget. http://www.epic.org/crypto/clipper/gore_statement_feb_94.html

RedPlanet wrote:

Sure what was Clinton impeached for?
Oh yeah, lying about Monica Lewzinski:rolleyes:

No. He was impeached for lying under oath in front of a grand jury.

RedPlanet

metrovelvet wrote:

How soon we forget. http://www.epic.org/crypto/clipper/gore_statement_feb_94.html

What does encryption have to do with illegally wiretapping American citizens?
I don't see the relevance.

metrovelvet wrote:

No. He was impeached for lying under oath in front of a grand jury.

Yeah, about Monica Lewzinski.
I reckon wiretapping thousands (millions?) of communciations illegally is worse than lying under oath about an affair.
Even if Bush claims that he didn't know it was illegal.

metrovelvet

The clipper chip was proposed as a way for the govt to monitor computer/internet traffic of US private citizens and businesses.

In your world lying under oath may not be a big deal, but in the US perjury is a serious crime that anyone else would have gone to prison for it. It doesnt matter WHAT you lied about, it matters THAT you lied in a courtroom before a jury.

The legality/illegality of wiretapping is to be determined.

flogen

RedPlanet wrote:

Even if Bush claims that he didn't know it was illegal.

It's not that he didn't know it was illegal, it's that he denies it was illegal; he's saying he has the perogative to permit warrentless wiretapping in the case of protecting the country and that by getting a warrent from a court they'd simply be giving the terrorists a heads up (which is, of course, ignorant of the fact that the Government can request closed sittings).

The practice cannot be deemed illegal until it is brought to the Supreme Court; if they do find it illegal then Bush will probably stop, but even then it'd be hard to impeach him.

RedPlanet

metrovelvet wrote:

perjury is a serious crime that anyone else would have gone to prison for it. It doesnt matter WHAT you lied about, it matters THAT you lied in a courtroom before a jury.

So serious a crime that we pretty well never hear of anyone going to jail over it?

Goodshape

The point with the Clinton 'scandal', I've always thought, is that they put him on the spot and made a very public issue out of a private family matter. He absolutely should not have lied under oath, but the questions being asked had little relevance with regards to his ability to govern the country. imo.

I'd also be of the opinion that Bush and Co. lied about their reasons for invading Iraq - something a lot more serious than any 'sexual relations', and aren't the questions about the legality of wiretapping largely down to Bush and Co.'s efforts to change the existing law? Or have they already succeeded?

metrovelvet

RedPlanet wrote:

So serious a crime that we pretty well never hear of anyone going to jail over it?

L'il Kim.

metrovelvet

Goodshape wrote:

The point with the Clinton 'scandal', I've always thought, is that they put him on the spot and made a very public issue out of a private family matter. He absolutely should not have lied under oath, but the questions being asked had little relevance with regards to his ability to govern the country. imo.

I'd also be of the opinion that Bush and Co. lied about their reasons for invading Iraq - something a lot more serious than any 'sexual relations', and aren't the questions about the legality of wiretapping largely down to Bush and Co.'s efforts to change the existing law? Or have they already succeeded?

It was "public" in so far as it happened in the White House and it happened with a White House intern, legally constituting sexual harrassment, though this I dont believe he was charged with this. His main crime was perjury, before a grand jury, and that is public, especially if you are commander in chief. He could have at least pulled a Reagan with a few "I dont remember" s.

Their defense for lying about Iraq is that they were lied to by the CIA. They are also pointing to the fact the the CIA and the NSA are still filled with Clinton appointees. [shrug] But - THEY DID NOT LIE UNDER OATH. And that is the big difference.

As far as I understand, the govt has always been practising wiretapping, and this is an avenue by which they can submit what they find via wiretapping [unauthorised by the courts] as evidence. Obviously, if its illegal, its inadmissable evidence.

My point is not to slam the democrats, because I quite liked them before Clinton and believe that he is soley responsible for ruining that party. But there is a certain amount of hypocricy when it comes to slamming Bush while cheerleading for Clinton.

Gandhi

This is from a very biased source, but if it is true, then Raj from The Apprentice wins the "dirty tricks" award for this campaign:

Edit: click the new URL and it is the third entry down "The 'Dude that is f***ed up award'...". Bad word in the direct URL got filtered out.

http://www.philebrity.com/2006/11/07/

Oh, and in case anyone cares Raj got absolutely thrashed in the actual election.

RedPlanet

i get: Error 404 - Not Found

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

So serious a crime that we pretty well never hear of anyone going to jail over it?

Happens plenty of times, just isn't particularly nationally newsworthy.

NTM

bonkey

metrovelvet wrote:

The clipper chip was proposed as a way for the govt to monitor computer/internet traffic of US private citizens and businesses.

Not entirely.

It was meant to make it easier to obtain the information once due process had been followed to allow the information to be legally obtained.

The scandal was that the safeguards weren't considered strong enough, and that the temptation would exist to abuse the system and ultimately be given in to.

The distinction you're failing to make is that in the light of the "scandal" (which was effectively a sustained outcry against the project), Clipper was dropped. Bush, on the other hand, ignored the legally required due process, then sought to retrofit the law (arguably in an unconstitutional manner) to make his actions legal and to allow them to continue and didn't abandon the project in the light of the sustained outcry against it.

In your world lying under oath may not be a big deal, but in the US perjury is a serious crime that anyone else would have gone to prison for it. It doesnt matter WHAT you lied about, it matters THAT you lied in a courtroom before a jury.

I agree. Clinton should never have been brought upon front of a jury on the issue, but once he was, he had no excuse for lying.

It is interesting to note, however, the different stances taken with respect to whether or not Bush should be investigated, and if so, why and how. Its especially interesting to compare with how the same people argued regarding bringing Clinton under investigation, why it was necessary and how it should have been done.

jc

FatherTed

RedPlanet wrote:

Forgetabout the war in Iraq.
I'm just looking forward to the impeachment hearings and investigations into corruption and cronysim.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should spend most of their remaining days in the dock. Or trying to avoid it. (imo)

There wont be any impeachment hearings.

metrovelvet

bonkey wrote:

The distinction you're failing to make is that in the light of the "scandal" (which was effectively a sustained outcry against the project), Clipper was dropped. Bush, on the other hand, ignored the legally required due process, then sought to retrofit the law (arguably in an unconstitutional manner) to make his actions legal and to allow them to continue and didn't abandon the project in the light of the sustained outcry against it.

Good point.

bonkey wrote:

It is interesting to note, however, the different stances taken with respect to whether or not Bush should be investigated, and if so, why and how. Its especially interesting to compare with how the same people argued regarding bringing Clinton under investigation, why it was necessary and how it should have been done.

Yes that is interesting. IMO it has to do with two very different cultural climates. The country was in a different mindset than it is now.

cooker3

Democrats have just taken Montana senate seat so if they take Virginia they will have control of senate, it is going to a re-count though but democrat candinate is ahead by few thousand votes so it's looking like they may take both houses.

Hobbes

According to AP its pretty much a done deal with them taking the senate. Going to be a real kick in the nuts for Bush.

Btw, does anyone know how this will effect Bushes ability to dick with bills he does sign into law (Signing statements). I was looking at a list of bills he signed and his comments to a lot of them was "This doesn't count if I have a different opinion".

Yeah I notice Fox news is concentrating more and more on domestic news...they don't want to know

I see Nancy pelosi has called Bush "dangerous",an emperor with no clothes on, and dumb amongst other things...

And she's going to the Oval office next week to see what Bush wants.

Don't you just love it

sovtek

metrovelvet wrote:

Good point.



Yes that is interesting. IMO it has to do with two very different cultural climates. The country was in a different mindset than it is now.

I guess hypocrisy is the prevailing cultural climate now.
Then there's the little matter of wars of aggression and all war crimes that possibly followed.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

According to AP its pretty much a done deal with them taking the senate. Going to be a real kick in the nuts for Bush.

Btw, does anyone know how this will effect Bushes ability to dick with bills he does sign into law (Signing statements). I was looking at a list of bills he signed and his comments to a lot of them was "This doesn't count if I have a different opinion".

I think this might be an area where the Dems take a stand (a rare thing). Some republicans are uneasy about this. I think Bush might 86 this himself as things aren't looking so good at the moment and the Dems might decide to start doing it should Billary get in.

RedPlanet

Does anybody know when the last time both Houses were taken back by the opposition, during Midterms?

flogen

So what would a Senate win mean for the Dems? I know they'd be able to block conservative judges going to the Supreme Court, but what else can they do that the House cannot (I mean, they obviously can carry the House's legislation through, like the Seanad can with the Dáil, but what else?)

RedPlanet

From the Telegraph:

After snatching the House with the closest thing to a crushing mandate ever likely in a system biased in favour of the incumbents, the Democrats now have their hands on the investigative machinery of Capitol Hill.

They can hire lawyers and detectives; they can subpoena documents and compel witnesses to testify under oath; they can mount show trials - or indeed real trials - subjecting their enemies to torment under the glaring klieg lights of the world media

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/08/uambrose108.xml

I really hope they go after Bush and co.
If America would ever be resuscitated, it needs to be done.

J.S. Pill

Its really sad to see such bitter divisions across the water. I mean why can't there people just see past differences and reach across the party divide? There is so much at stake here. Tragic :rolleyes:

flogen

RedPlanet wrote:

From the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/08/uambrose108.xml

I really hope they go after Bush and co.
If America would ever be resuscitated, it needs to be done.

Thanks for that.

I'd imagine they wouldn't dare go for Bush unless something really negative happens that could be pinned on him from this day forward... they can't be seen to be going on a vendetta against the President in a "time of war"

cooker3

RedPlanet wrote:

Does anybody know when the last time both Houses were taken back by the opposition, during Midterms?

I believe the republicans did it in 94 when Newt Gingrich had the contract with America and all that went with that.

I think it should be pointed out while lot of people here would love Bush to get impeached and those "evil" republicans to get their commupance, you have to remember a good few democrats and not exactly liberal (especially by european standard) support gun control, supported the war etc, so not automatic pass that Bush will be de-railed, politicians in states have no issue voting against their party if they want to, it is nowhere as tightly controlled like in uk or over here. So don't go expecting miracles.

Milktrolley

Tristrame wrote:

I see Nancy pelosi has called Bush "dangerous",an emperor with no clothes on, and dumb amongst other things...

And she's going to the Oval office next week to see what Bush wants.

Don't you just love it

Yep! I also loved it yesterday when Bush got asked about it. It was one of the few questions he didn't interrupt. A lot of rookie reporters admit being nervous asking Bush a question - you have to wonder does he interrupt and make fun of them just to throw them off so they'll be less likely to spot the bull he comes out with.

Glad to see Rumsfeld will almost certainly be going soon, but Robert Gates (who I don't know a lot about, other than that his recommendation was probably Bush 41's idea according to MSNBC yesterday) may very well be just as bad.

From November 6th: Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Manic Moran

Gates is pretty much a professional spy. He served a couple of years as an intelligence officer in the US Air Force, and stayed with the intelligence agencies when he got out of uniform.

He was implicated in the Iran-Contra deal, but nothing ever came of it.

BBC is saying that he has a more consensual management style than Rummy had.

NTM

Diogenes

flogen wrote:

So what would a Senate win mean for the Dems? I know they'd be able to block conservative judges going to the Supreme Court, but what else can they do that the House cannot (I mean, they obviously can carry the House's legislation through, like the Seanad can with the Dáil, but what else?)

Supreme court has been and gone, baring sudden death there won't be another supreme court judge appointment in the next two years. Bush has got his two conversatives he wanted there already.

What they can do is appoint commitee chairs, start investigations, draft legislation, block budgets.

Its' also a question of what will they do. They need to prove to the country in the next two years that they are a force for change to make themselves ready for the presidental election, if they spend the whole of the two years playing bipartisan snipers they'll never get a democratic president elected.

RedPlanet

Diogenes wrote:

Its' also a question of what will they do. They need to prove to the country in the next two years that they are a force for change to make themselves ready for the presidental election, if they spend the whole of the two years playing bipartisan snipers they'll never get a democratic president elected.

Sez who exactly?
How about this: once they get investations going expose to the public the extent of corruption, cronyism and law breaking that the Bush cabal has hereto enjoyed.
Entirely at the expense of the tax payer.
That, along with a compliant press and you've got the makings of not only impeachment hearings, but perhaps certain folks doing actual jail time whilst packing the rest of the GOP scrambling for cover.

I would say, a Republican wants what you've posted.
While a Democrat is more likely to want a pound of flesh.

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

I would say, a Republican wants what you've posted.
While a Democrat is more likely to want a pound of flesh.

Not quite. The more liberal Democrats want a pound of flesh. To Pelosi's credit, she's already put down the possibility of impeachments unless something comes up. Because the two-party system is bipolar in theory, but not so in practise (thankfully), most people realise that whether they like it or not, they have to work with some parts of the other side in order to get anything done, even if they have a majority in name. There will be hearings, there will be investigations, but I don't think it's going to go to the extent of witch-hunt or lynch mob: It will just alienate the moderate voters in battleground states that put the Ds in charge, because they are caught in the middle. They want to see a party (preferably both parties) that can work civilly together, even if they don't like each other. That's why the whole McCain 'Gang of 14' deal was so pivotal.

NTM

Chakar

Okay the Democrats have took back control of Congress.They'll be able to get all the stuff that was hidden in the woodworks out into the open.George Bush is going to have a tough next two years considering the ease he "governed" in the last six years.

Also I don't think Bush will be impeached but anyway who knows.

George Bush can still veto bills that he doesn't like irrespective how many times the bill is given to him.Congress can make a bill law by a two thirds majority in both Houses which the Democrats don't have so.

But they do have a huge leverage over what he does in office.Congress is the legislator.

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

Not quite. The more liberal Democrats want a pound of flesh. To Pelosi's credit, she's already put down the possibility of impeachments unless something comes up. Because the two-party system is bipolar in theory, but not so in practise (thankfully), most people realise that whether they like it or not, they have to work with some parts of the other side in order to get anything done, even if they have a majority in name. There will be hearings, there will be investigations, but I don't think it's going to go to the extent of witch-hunt or lynch mob: It will just alienate the moderate voters in battleground states that put the Ds in charge, because they are caught in the middle. They want to see a party (preferably both parties) that can work civilly together, even if they don't like each other. That's why the whole McCain 'Gang of 14' deal was so pivotal.
NTM

I took her words with a pinch of salt.
I think you are forgetting that what i am taking about is pretty well exactly what the Republicans did with Clinton.
They didn't suffer for it.
Once the extent of the Bush crimes become known and all the skeletons have been outed from the closets, the GOP will be shamed into the corner.

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

Gates is pretty much a professional spy. He served a couple of years as an intelligence officer in the US Air Force, and stayed with the intelligence agencies when he got out of uniform.
He was implicated in the Iran-Contra deal, but nothing ever came of it.
BBC is saying that he has a more consensual management style than Rummy had.
NTM

Well, here's an interesting piece on Gates.
http://www.cq.com/public/20061108_homeland.html
But it doesn't exactly seem as rosy an assessment.

"Then, in during his 1991 nomination hearings to run the CIA, Gates ran into a buzz saw of testimony from a former agency analyst who said that during the 1980s Gates had skewered intelligence to fit the convictions of senior Reagan administration officials that Soviet agents had concocted a plot to assassinate the pope and were arming and encouraging Marxist revolutionary groups to carry out terrorist attacks."

“During his tenure at CIA, Mr. Gates developed a reputation for pressuring analysts and managers to shape analytical conclusions to fit administration positions, a fact that led dozens of current and former CIA analysts to oppose his confirmation as CIA Director in 1991,” said Holt, who will likely chair an intelligence subcommittee starting in January.

Manic Moran

Hmm.

Well, that didn't take long.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Pelosi.htm

As the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Ms. Harman was expected to become chairman of the powerful committee. But Ms. Pelosi is expected to pass over Ms. Harman for either Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida or Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, the second- and third-ranking Democrats on the intelligence panel.

The 42-member Congressional Black Caucus has been pushing for Mr. Hastings, an impeached federal judge, to become chairman. Earlier this year, the caucus was upset by Ms. Pelosi's decision to expel Rep. William Jefferson from the committee after he was accused of accepting bribes.

"There is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee," Ms. Pelosi said. "The leader or the speaker can appoint a whole new set of people."

The sources said the 61-year-old Ms. Harman, regarded as the best informed House Democrat on intelligence and technology issues, angered the liberal Ms. Pelosi by supporting the Bush administration’s policies on defense issues, particularly the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. They said Ms. Pelosi has rebuffed lobbyists in the pro-Israel community and defense industry that sought a chairmanship for Ms. Harman.

"If Nancy Pelosi's apparent determination to deny Jane Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee to appease the Black Caucus is any indication, Democratic control is not going to be good news for those who believe in competent oversight of the national-security apparatus," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute.


Wonderful. Further proof that all politicians, regardless of stripe, are of the same cloth. So instead of picking the acknowledged best person for the job, she's apparently going for a politician who was fired from his previous job as a federal judge by the US Senate for bribery and perjury.

What was the end of Animal Farm? "And the animals looked from the humans to the pigs, and they could no longer tell them apart"

NTM

flogen

Manic Moran wrote:

Wonderful. Further proof that all politicians, regardless of stripe, are of the same cloth. So instead of picking the acknowledged best person for the job, she's apparently going for a politician who was fired from his previous job as a federal judge by the US Senate for bribery and perjury.

What was the end of Animal Farm? "And the animals looked from the humans to the pigs, and they could no longer tell them apart"

NTM

Well that depends on the definition of 'best person for the job', it's obviously objective.
George W. said a week ago Rumsfeld was the best person for the defense job; the people spoke and he changed his mind.
If someone is generally Hawkish then they may not do the best job in the eyes of the Democrats, and so they're not the best person for the job.
There is a difference between being Hawkish and wanting to solve the problem in Iraq (which I chose as the one policy most associated with the Reps in recent years),.

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

They said Ms. Pelosi has rebuffed lobbyists in the pro-Israel community and defense industry that sought a chairmanship for Ms. Harman.

well that sounds like a good start at least.

Manic Moran wrote:

"If Nancy Pelosi's apparent determination to deny Jane Harman the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee to appease the Black Caucus is any indication, Democratic control is not going to be good news for those who believe in competent oversight of the national-security apparatus," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute.

Sour grapes.

Manic Moran wrote:

So instead of picking the acknowledged best person for the job, she's apparently going for a politician who was fired from his previous job as a federal judge by the US Senate for bribery and perjury.

I would agree if there are ethical issues surounding that pick.
However i wouldn't go so far as to say she's not picking the acknowledged best person for the job because that is entirely subjective. And on the face of it, in leiu of consistant Intel failures (911, WMD, Bin Laden at large, Iraqi insurgency) i'd say the evidence suggests that the best persons are NOT in the job.

Hobbes

Looks like John Bolton is next for the chopping block. Bush has tried to sneak his job in before the final day of the republican Senate but appears some repubs don't like him either and the democrats are not going to allow him to keep his job.