I think AIPAC made a big slip-up the other day when they booed Pelosi and offered a standing ovation to Cheney.

I know that after the Lamont campaign the people of firedoglake are very sensitive to trolls’ charges of “anti-Semitism”, but AIPAC has just crossed a line into Republican partisanship.

Let me propose a reframing.

In order for people here to more comfortably address this important issue people should not call it, or even think of it, as a “Jewish” organization. Call it neoconservative, or, even better, Republican. Give AIPAC to the Republicans, along with their war. Democrats should learn soon that there’s no pleasing them, and that the downside of displeasing them may, in fact, be overrated. Did Pelosi lose for standing up to Harman?

Let me offer a comparison. In the same way that AIPAC partisans will claim they represent Jews you could say a Dobson or a Falwell represents Christian evangelicals. Some, yes, but not all, or even necessarily a majority. What defines those leaders, rather, is that they are cogs in the Republican political machine. AIPAC has always been different, trying to keep a watch on both parties; it really belongs among the constellation of narrow constitutuencies for the war. But as supporting the war becomes less viable for Democrats, AIPAC will become openly hostile to them, more overtly Republican.

I think we are seeing the beginning of a coalition shift; wars can do this. AIPAC, though its first home was the Democratic party (Richard Perle, after all, is a registered Democrat, as he constantly reminds us), must necessarily gravitate now to the Republicans as the political cost for Democrats of supporting the war increases. It will become more nakedly crazy and partisan. Booing Pelosi should be seen as big fuck-up opportunity to go after them on a partisan basis, without any extraneous, emotional debates about Israel-Palestinian politics, or God forbid, Israeli-Palestinian history.

But, let me play the devil’s advocate here, for a minute. They really don’t have the votes yet, to do anything very meaningful with direct legislation. The committee hearings into Abu Gonzalez and the “Night of the Attorneys” pogrom, and all the Halliburton shit, etc., are their best cue-stick for beating, right now.

And factor this in: There is not going to be a happy ending for Iraq, nor for us, nor for the region, no matter who is in the white house.
When, not “if” our troops leave, the likelihood of a much worse level of civil strife than we’ve already seen, is high. And even if, by some miracle of goodwill, and a spirit of compromise the size of the Himalayas, that could somehow be avoided, we are still going to be looking at 2/3rds of Iraq dominated by that Shiite majority which is already exchanging ass-rubs with the mullahs in Teheran.
Then, there will be the ongoing problem of the Kurdish-dominated north, with IT’S huge oil reserves at stake. The Turks simply will not stand for an independent Kurdish state, and the Kurds, without american power there as a check on their statehood aspirations, will try to move in that direction, and move fairly quickly, I think.

Bottom line, SOMEONE is going to get blamed for all of this, and if the dems are the ones to force a pullout, most of it will accrue to them. When has bushCo scrupled to reject the opportunity for a big, Hitlerian, lie, about the stab in the back? It’s a rhetorical question, and the answer, of course, is NEVER.

The game that bush and the petro-borgs have ginned up, is now for ALL the marbles. They didn’t intend it that way; it just happened, when they were stupid and arrogant enough to think they could impose an occupation, and their will, on Iraq at the point of a gun.
If the dems can force the troops home, there is no way that every republican and chickenhawk, from bush all the way down to the street-peckerheads, ALL of whom are now shit-their-pants desperate for SOMETHING to help them get out from under the turd-barrage (which has already started, with the loss of both houses of congress) won’t crank up a chorus worthy of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, to the effect that Pelosi & company snatched defeat from the jaws of “victory”.

And, sad to say, a lot of americans who’ve supported the invasion in the first place, will grab for that idiot’s jar of conscience-salve.
“It’s all THEIR fault!” will be a mantra, for the people who really did this to us.

As cynical as it is to point out, if Pelosi and the democrats succeed TOO early at pulling the plug on the shitmire, they will be providing an out for bush, and it could be a disaster for them, and for those of us who’ve been outraged these years, at the bloody misery of Iraq, which bush and his people have created out of a bucket of bullshit and koolaid.

It’s like this; any realistic projection for the “end” of the war in Iraq, is also shit-your-pants scary, for the dems, when they consider a REAL move to bring the troops home. That’s just how fucked up was bush’s decision to pull the trigger, and perversely, it’s one thing that is helping him, sorta/kinda: no one else REALLY wants the responsibility for ending our military presence there, just now. Instead, the preznintial candidates, and the congressional democrats, are willing to let bush twist slowly in the wind, to the point of allowing more of our troops to die, and of pissing away that $2.5 billion a week that the shitmire is costing us, as the voters become more and more cynical about the chances for “victory” in Iraq, and, more and more willing, for now, to blame bush and his coterie of neo-shitbirds, for the unending war in Iraq.

Even if the splurge succeeds at suppressing a lot of the violence, and at forcing both the Sunni insurgents, and the Shiite militias and death squads, back into hiding, does anyone think they won’t be back, with a vengeance, the moment bush starts drawing down?

And draw down, he must, or, after the 2008 elections, the repubs won’t have enough bodies left in congress for a good roundpound.

So. I think the dems are saying:

“Yeah, we don’t have the votes to bring ‘em home, just now…and that’s fine with us, to have the repubs and a few yellowdog dems, defeating any legislation, binding or not, to really put an end to our military occupation of Iraq. Especially since, the shit is almost certainly going to fly, when we do pull out.

You guys can keep on staying the course, and we’ll keep on holding press conferences to remind the american people of who pulled the trigger, and of all the bullshit that was cobbled up to get support for doing it, and 19 months down the road, we’ll let the voters decide (just as they did last November…) whom they want to hold responsible. :o)

It’s hard to blame them for playing a game of “chicken” right now; what else can they do, at this point?

RadRobin—glad we came to the same conclusion at almost the same time.

Ugh. I am idiot. Well, I learned one of the little things you have to pay attention to when using this site: what thread you are on.

I apologize for being so rude. My feelings really were hurt! :-)

I am going to repost this diary ONE MORE FRIGGIN’ TIME (under “Joe has no power over the Senate”). Let’s see – I posted it on Kos, were it dropped like a rock, and at Myleftnutmeg, where they were smart enought to know that even if those in power knew the legalities, they really don’t care, I posted it in the Guardian – what more can the Secretary for Connecticut for Lieberman do?

To wit -
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/sh…..aryId=5974

From Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings – Here’s a longer history, containing an account of the 83rd Congress, which must hold the all time record for shifting majorities:
“The Republicans had a Senate plurality from January to July 1953. Then the Democrats had a plurality until June 1954; the Republicans again until December 1954; and finally the Democrats again until the 83d Congress ended in January 1955. These periods were occasionally interrupted by a week or two, and in one case a month, when the parties were tied.

For nearly half of the 83d Congress, the Democrats had more Senate seats than the Republicans. But for the entire two years, Republicans chaired the committees and ran the Senate. Republican Senator William Knowland frequently referred to himself as a majority leader without a majority, and his Democratic counterpart, Lyndon Johnson, said, “If anyone has more problems than a majority leader with a minority, it is a minority leader with a majority.”"

It also contains an account of Sen. Wayne Morse’s difficulties finding a stable party identity after he left the Republicans:

“When the Senate met at the start of the 83d Congress, Morse refused to sit with either party in the Senate chamber and instead sat on a folding chair in the aisle between the Republican side and the Democratic side. When he realized this made him look silly, he resumed his seat on the Republican side even though he was no longer a Republican. Then he wanted to sit among the Democrats because, he said, two Republican senators kept whispering insults at him.”

I went and checked the Senate’s Organizing Resolutions, and it’s true: whereas the 107th Congress’s resolution (S. Res. 8) does provide for a shift in control of the Senate if the majority shifts, there is no such language in the organizing resolutions for the present Congress (S. Res. 27 and 28.)

S. Res. 27

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…..0:S.RES.27

S. Res. 28
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…..ES.28.ATS:

Maybe, just maybe someone in the Senate will read these resolutions. I give up.

Sue! I read them! The Democrats are immunized until the NEXT Congressional Session…I’m sure that if Lieberman was appointed by Bush to be Atty Gewneral or somne other Cabinet position there would be a Special Election hled in Conn. and Ned Lamont would be elected to the Senate.

That’s something the Republicans would not want at all! And thus Lieb is gonna sit right where he is. Bush’s best chance would be to appoint someone like Cohen, a moderate, to the position.

Mutant Poodle @
4

I wish the DC Dems would tell Holy Joe to take a hike, but given that they won’t, I have to hope that come January 1, 2009, Mr. Lieberman will be totally neutered and just counting the days until his retirement in (ugh) 2012.

Has anyone thought about the possible repercussions of a nomination of Joe Lieberman for the post of AG, should it become available? Seems to me it has the possibility of solving a few of Georgie’s problems with one stroke.

I was thinking the other day that G W would almost have to nominate a democrat in order to get Senate confirmation for a new AG. Then it hit me that if he nominates Lieberman, there is a possibility of his confirmation, with the added advantage of taking away Democratic majority in the Senate. Even counting Senator Tim Johnson, who is still hospitalized, Dems would still have only 50-50 split, with the VP breaking any ties.

I know Jane thinks Joe isn’t going anywhere, but as I pointed out before, that’s what the Repugs thought when they tried to punish Jim Jeffords for not walking the company line. Then Jim went Independent and caucused with Dems when they offered him a committee chairmanship. Somebody please prove to me I’m wrong! Please!

Update: Senator Sununu has become the first Repug to call for Gonzo’s resignation.

Very simple solution…the Dems fail to nominate Joe. They thus retain their obligate majority.

Or they could let Joe go…lose his seat and have the voters of Maryland vote in Lamont. The 17th Amendment States that:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

The Democrats control the Connecticut Legislature and likely wont not allow the Republican Governore to fill the seat with anyone but Lamont. They would NOT EMPOWER the Gov. to fill the vacancy, requiring it to remain empty until a Special Election filled it. I beleieve that the Continuing Operating Rule holds that the Democrats would retain Chairmanships until the Session was over.

Wow, I had two other comments in this thread re Fitz not testifying before congress. I assume because it is off topic? God forbid it be because I shed some DOUBT on Fitz’ loyalty to the people over the administration. I expect this to be deleted as well. But at least a mod at FDL will have to read this, my objection.

I see people post OT things all the time… breaking news, etc.

I don’t plan come back, and will stop talking you guys up in my numerous listservs.

Now I get why the setup is to have ONE long thread. No one is supposed to go off message. Sheesh.

On behalf of all the mods, be assured nothing you have written today has been deleted.

There are two of your comments about Fitz on another thread, including:

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..ent-559595