OT continuing a theme I touched on in the last thread, the people at the NYT are idiots.

Carl Hulse has an article on Lamar ALexander. It begins:
…
Hulse describes Alexander as seeking a middle path. He supports the Iraq study group report but doesn’t want a timetable. He never says anywhere how this can be accomplished or what the h*ll this really means.
…
But what really irks me about this story on Alexander and his “struggle” is that Hulse never mentions that Alexander is up for re-election in 2008. Yeah, I bet that has nothing to do with his position on Iraq, not a thing.

If Alexander is pretending to be anti-war while still firmly astride the fence post (ahem, taking a wide stance) then it could well mean we oughta take a look at running someone against him. He wouldn’t act this way if he wasn’t facing some pressure.

It might be too late. It might not work. But failure – and much more horror — is guaranteed if we don’t even try.

Christy,
I posted a link downstairs at #133. That’s me. I finally write a seriously considered comment and, at the end of a thread.
I encourage you to check out this article http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1272/135/.
If you’re in the mood for some Thourea-type thinking. You might consider it for a thread topic.

WOW!! In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “A republic if you can keep it.” But, our fine Democratic leaders have given it away.

“This is a victory for honest resistance. It is a pleasure (to see the troops go),” said trader Ahmed Ali Omar, 35. “We had long been wishing for the occupier to go so that stability can be restored.”

Army officer Sadoun Hami was even more jubilant.

“We are happy to be rid of the British. They were harrassing us in the streets and raided our houses and arrested our sons. We now want to see them out of greater Basra,” he said.

Can you imagine the celebration when we leave?

Simply put, the Democrats smell blood in the water in the next election cycle, as well as they should, and so they will allow the Bushies to nominate one of their own so the Democrats can continue with the mantra that Democrats are needed in the all of the races coming up to effectuate change in Washington, instead of pushing thru someone that will hurt the Bushies and bring “reform and oversight” to the DOJ. There is only 1 1/2 years left of the Bushies, so why waste political leverage by insisting on someone that might actually bring some change. Instead, continue with “the Bushies nominate only cronies to protect themselves” and try and win some more seats in Congress. If the Democrats were going to bring any serious charges against the Bushies, they would have pulled the trigger long ago instead of dancing around and holding inane hearings.

With the most corrupt Administration in our history it is no surprise that same Administration is using its network of cronies to see that nothing much happens until they are long gone.

At least they can’t be pardoned this way…
I could go with Sheldon Whitehouse for AG. (obviously not now, but when a dem is elected president)

Isn’t it amazing that our heros now are simply people who respect and follow our Constitution?
Is

I’m hoping for Hillary to be AG; I think it would have a certain “poetic justice” ring to it. Hmmm…think she could find a way to go after Ken Starr?

Hugh @ 56

Do you have Steven Griles and Italia Federici? Both Abramoff scandal, both convicted of lying to Congress.

Hugh, is your list of Bushie scandals posted? Off hand, do you recall the number you’ve reached to date?

If you click on my name it should take you to the list. It’s up to 244.

Carl Hulse has an article on Lamar ALexander. It begins:

Senator Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican and career consensus seeker, finds himself in a familiar position when it comes to the war in Iraq: somewhere in the middle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09…..kUYac6eDLA

When Democrats don’t take a stand on an issue they are wishy-washy. When a Republican does the same thing, he’s a consensus builder.

Hulse describes Alexander as seeking a middle path. He supports the Iraq study group report but doesn’t want a timetable. He never says anywhere how this can be accomplished or what the h*ll this really means.

The Iraq Study report was never a practical document. Its recommendations could only be put into effect if you presupposed the recommendations had already been put into effect. It was at best a means to give political cover for a withdrawal. Bush rejected that cover. Now the ISG report is apparently being resurrected by mealy-mouthed politicians of both parties as some kind of a talisman, not to get us out of Iraq but to save their political skins. I wonder how many of them have actually read it.

But what really irks me about this story on Alexander and his “struggle” is that Hulse never mentions that Alexander is up for re-election in 2008. Yeah, I bet that has nothing to do with his position on Iraq, not a thing.