(Potential) Breaking News! Rumsfeld Stepping Down? - Page 3

Ksyrup · 11-09-2006, 07:08 AM

The Dem's big night on Tuesday certainly pushed up Obama's timeline. I figured if there was any chance the Republicans could win in 2008, they'd save him for 2012/16 and throw someone else up there for 08. But now, I'm sure they are confident they have a real shot, so why not go with (at this point) the candidate with the most positive upside.

SFL Cat · 11-09-2006, 07:56 AM

Obama is too much of an X factor at this point. As long as the Clinton's people continue to hold key positions in the Democratic party it will be Hillary. Don't think she'll win, but she'll be the candidate.

SFL Cat · 11-09-2006, 08:00 AM

dola -- just read where Harry Reid said that before the Dems confirmed Gates for the new Sec Defense, he'd have to answer questions about Iran-Contra...this is starting out better than I could have ever hoped for...

ChiMatt · 11-09-2006, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Because the National Democratic Party told Leiberman NOT to run as an independent. Because Howard Dean and Nany peolsi and the other Dem talking heads all told Joe to be a good party member, respect the voters, and support the winner of the Democratic primary, which he did not. Democratic leaders in the senate said prior to the outcome of the primary that - should Lieberman lose the primary and get elected to the senate as an Independent - Lieberman would not be asked to be a member of any key Senatorial committee.

Lieberman is lucky that the demographics of the senate are as close as they are, because if they didn't need his vote, Lieberman would be persona non gratia as far as the Democrats are concerned.

What people aren't saying though is that if Lieberman ran as a Republican or said up front that he would caucus with the Repubicans he would have never won the state. He needed to run as someone who would caucus with the Democrats to win.

Butter · 11-09-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

dola -- just read where Harry Reid said that before the Dems confirmed Gates for the new Sec Defense, he'd have to answer questions about Iran-Contra...this is starting out better than I could have ever hoped for...

Gates probably won't have to go through the new Senate, I'd imagine.

But Bush will have to realize with his appointments that the Congress is no longer just a rubber stamp for whoever he wants. I agree that it's starting out better than I could ever have hoped. Actual tough questions being asked.... imagine!

-Mojo Jojo- · 11-09-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiMatt

What people aren't saying though is that if Lieberman ran as a Republican or said up front that he would caucus with the Repubicans he would have never won the state. He needed to run as someone who would caucus with the Democrats to win.

Ding ding ding. See Lincoln Chaffee.

Toddzilla · 11-09-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiMatt

What people aren't saying though is that if Lieberman ran as a Republican or said up front that he would caucus with the Repubicans he would have never won the state. He needed to run as someone who would caucus with the Democrats to win.

Well he did that - in the Democratic Primary he ran as a Democrat - and he got his ass handed to him. Democrats in Connecticut spoke very loudly and clearly that they wanted Ned Lamont to represent the party in the Senate, not Joe Lieberman.

However, to be fair, as good a campaign Lamont ran in the primary, Lieberman ran in the general election and deserved the win.

SFL Cat · 11-09-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Gates probably won't have to go through the new Senate, I'd imagine.

But Bush will have to realize with his appointments that the Congress is no longer just a rubber stamp for whoever he wants. I agree that it's starting out better than I could ever have hoped. Actual tough questions being asked.... imagine!

I'd love for the Democrats to dredge up Iran-Contra...please, Harry, do it!

JPhillips · 11-09-2006, 10:13 AM

They'll just ask him some questions. In the end Gates will get confirmed easily. Its not going to be a political event for either side.

SFL Cat · 11-09-2006, 10:35 AM

My only question is will the Dems try to play nice with Bush for the last two years of his presidency or will they yield to pressure from their fringe kooks and try to impeach him?

Jonathan Ezarik · 11-09-2006, 10:41 AM

I don't think they'll go for impeachment (unless something drastic comes up), but I also don't think they'll be buddy buddy. They'll fight him on most things, but try to work with him on others (immigration, for one).

cartman · 11-09-2006, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I'd love for the Democrats to dredge up Iran-Contra...please, Harry, do it!

That's gonna be difficult to do, since almost all of the main players are either dead or have received immunity, in addition to the fact that the documents related to the case have been sealed until (I believe) 2025.

Subby · 11-09-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

My only question is will the Dems try to play nice with Bush for the last two years of his presidency or will they yield to pressure from their fringe kooks and try to impeach him?

Pelosi has already completely rejected that idea. The country voted for the center, not the fringes - and it seems like she and the rest of the congressional dems are operating from that point.

MIJB#19 · 11-09-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

That's semantics then. The way I see it, Tucker didn't beat Maassluis in the IHOF playoffs. Maassluis gave the game to us.

Beat us, gave it to you, it doesn't make it less painful... :o

Leonidas · 11-09-2006, 12:18 PM

How can they impeach a guy for starting a war they supported, based on the same intelligence they were seeing, as well as Russia, England, and every other credible intelligence service in the world that said Saddam had WMD's? I know John Conyers has already drafted this proposal up, but no way it happens. And what if it does? Do the Dems really want to replace Bush with Cheney? It's just nonsense talk.

Dutch · 11-09-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonidas

How can they impeach a guy for starting a war they supported, based on the same intelligence they were seeing, as well as Russia, England, and every other credible intelligence service in the world that said Saddam had WMD's? I know John Conyers has already drafted this proposal up, but no way it happens. And what if it does? Do the Dems really want to replace Bush with Cheney? It's just nonsense talk.

True, now, if they want to impeach the world's intelligence communities, I'm all for it.

Ksyrup · 11-09-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subby

Pelosi has already completely rejected that idea. The country voted for the center, not the fringes - and it seems like she and the rest of the congressional dems are operating from that point.

I will gain a great deal of respect for Pelosi (or at least her management abilities) if she is able to rein in her party's most rabid members and actually focuses on at least trying to bridge the gap on a number of issues for the good of the country. Somehow, I don't see it happening (even if she honestly wants it to), but we'll see.

-Mojo Jojo- · 11-09-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonidas

How can they impeach a guy for starting a war they supported, based on the same intelligence they were seeing, as well as Russia, England, and every other credible intelligence service in the world that said Saddam had WMD's?

While I agree there's no forthcoming impeachment, you really should check out Mike Isikoff's Hubris (or any number of similar books) which makes a fairly in-depth study of what was and was not believed by intelligence agencies in the US and elsewhere at that time. The line you're selling above may be true in some vague sense (most believed there were some residual (pre-Gulf War) WMD's), it really isn't accurate with respect to the US justification for war. The reconstituted WMD programs, nuclear weapons, mobile weapons labs, the Al-Qaeda nexus, etc. were all heavily disputed just within the US intelligence agencies. Those disputes, those doubts, caveats, and qualifications never came out into public, as a consequence of highly focused campaign of propaganda and information control. Now thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead and we're stuck in a war that we can't win and would never have entered had the full truth come out. I don't think there should be an impeachment proceeding, but neither should you wave this off as business as usual. This is a mistake we need to learn from.

cartman · 11-09-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Do the Dems really want to replace Bush with Cheney?

I wouldn't be surprised if they start putting out feelers for reaction to an impeachment of Cheney. It would be politically far easier for them to go after him, and if successful, would further isolate Bush, making it easier for them to get their initiatives pushed through. The biggest obstacle right now to an impeachment of Bush is Cheney, and if they remove that, then Bush is pretty much hamstrung at that point.

But that's just the Machiavellian side of me talking.

SunDevil · 11-09-2006, 03:03 PM

cartman respect + 10

Butter · 11-09-2006, 03:03 PM

They would really have to figure out a way to make the liberties Bush has taken with the Executive Powers relevant again, and not just relevant, but evil sounding to the general public. I doubt it's a fight they're willing to take on at this point, unless something comes out in the inevitable endless hearings about Iraq and intelligence that will be coming.

11-09-2006, 07:08 AM	#101
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	The Dem's big night on Tuesday certainly pushed up Obama's timeline. I figured if there was any chance the Republicans could win in 2008, they'd save him for 2012/16 and throw someone else up there for 08. But now, I'm sure they are confident they have a real shot, so why not go with (at this point) the candidate with the most positive upside. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

11-09-2006, 08:00 AM	#103
SFL Cat College Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: South Florida	dola -- just read where Harry Reid said that before the Dems confirmed Gates for the new Sec Defense, he'd have to answer questions about Iran-Contra...this is starting out better than I could have ever hoped for... Last edited by SFL Cat : 11-09-2006 at 08:06 AM.

11-09-2006, 10:13 AM	#109
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	They'll just ask him some questions. In the end Gates will get confirmed easily. Its not going to be a political event for either side. __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

11-09-2006, 12:18 PM	#115
Leonidas College Benchwarmer Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: East Anglia	How can they impeach a guy for starting a war they supported, based on the same intelligence they were seeing, as well as Russia, England, and every other credible intelligence service in the world that said Saddam had WMD's? I know John Conyers has already drafted this proposal up, but no way it happens. And what if it does? Do the Dems really want to replace Bush with Cheney? It's just nonsense talk. __________________ Molon labe

11-09-2006, 03:03 PM	#121
Butter Coordinator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Dayton, OH	They would really have to figure out a way to make the liberties Bush has taken with the Executive Powers relevant again, and not just relevant, but evil sounding to the general public. I doubt it's a fight they're willing to take on at this point, unless something comes out in the inevitable endless hearings about Iraq and intelligence that will be coming. __________________ My listening habits

11-09-2006, 07:56 AM	#102
SFL Cat College Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: South Florida	Obama is too much of an X factor at this point. As long as the Clinton's people continue to hold key positions in the Democratic party it will be Hillary. Don't think she'll win, but she'll be the candidate.

11-09-2006, 10:35 AM	#110
SFL Cat College Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: South Florida	My only question is will the Dems try to play nice with Bush for the last two years of his presidency or will they yield to pressure from their fringe kooks and try to impeach him?

11-09-2006, 10:41 AM	#111
Jonathan Ezarik College Benchwarmer Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bossier City, LA	I don't think they'll go for impeachment (unless something drastic comes up), but I also don't think they'll be buddy buddy. They'll fight him on most things, but try to work with him on others (immigration, for one).

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)