Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Saturday, December 18, 2010

Lieberman triumphant?

This is a follow-up to the previous post about WikiLeaks. I find Anglachel's words from the 12th so thought- (and shudder-) provoking that the only recourse is to repeat them:
I think that you will see the Congress going directly after Sec. Clinton because CDS is always in vogue inside the Beltway. The Right (correctly) calculates that this needs to be done for two reasons - first is that they need to remove as many competent administration officials as possible to undermine what little stability and resilience the administration has left, while the second is to do their best to undermine HRC personally just before a primary season begins. They know who can rally Democrats. If they can badger Obama into asking for HRC's resignation, they score a major win. Given Obama's frantic desire to be seen as reasonable and given that Versailles is already howling for her blood, I believe it is a question of when, not if, she will be asked to resign. And for those of you on the Left who cheer the removal of who you think of as an enemy, I've got five words for you:

Secretary of State Joe Lieberman

Yeaaahhhh, kinda puts it all in perspective, don't it? As I alluded to in an earlier post, Lieberman's office getting in touch with Amazon probably didn't make any difference to the company's decision, but the public optics sure were nice. And then there he is with his face hanging out saying Assange should be charged with treason (which is not a legal possibility) and even threatening the dastardly New York Times...
Whoever Assange may be, whatever his agenda may be, one thing is clear: He is merely the publisher of leakers. He is, as it were, the fence, not the burglar.

The real leakers have their own agendas, their own schemes. I think that Anglachel may have identified one such scheme.

Let me add this: Obama himself may be one of the schemers. He may hope to remove the "Clinton problem" once and for all by forcing Hillary to leave under a cloud of scandal.

Sorry to sound like George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove, but I smell a great big neo-con rat in all this.
Comments:
Well, I think my article on the subject made a good point as well. Unless the U.S. Leaks are compared to other leaks, its pointless.

The severity of the info leaked would still need to be compared with what others countries are actually doing as well.

So, get your leaks all in a row so we can compare them.
 
On the other hand, Lieberman could join the long list of LOSERS who went after the Clintons in 2008 to curry favor with Barack Obama.
 
I am of the same mind on this as you are Joe. Funny how these so-called "leaks" have focused on the Clinton era at State.

Kind of reminds me of those nefarious "leaks" that took down some of Obama's political rivals back in the day here in the "windy city."
 
We are witnessing preordained presidents. Only someone who wasn't paying attention in 2008 could not see the apparatchik (media, blogs, DNC and the weakest GOP nominee) electing Obama. Maybe the same force is behind the cable leak to secure the nomination for Obama and his loss to the selected GOP nominee (Romney?). The only person that gets in the way, besides Hillary, is Sarah Palin. She doesn't play by the rules, but as we see right now, the press is working overtime to get rid of her. Every story, no matter how benign, like the signing of her book will have a negative tilt, and her negative rises.

We can only watch because the 2012 voters won't choose the president any more than the 2008 did.

I must assume the pre-ordination of presidents began with Reagan, because I believe Bill Clinton was not supposed to be president. The apparatchik worked 24/7 to bring him down, and without Ross Perot, a rich man who played by his own rules, Bill Clinton could have lost to H.W.B. and Bob Dole.
 
Anonymous:

I agree that we may have pre-ordained presidents.

However, Clinton got 49.x% of the vote in '96, so for him to have lost to Dole that year, under 1% of the otherwise Perot voters would have had to go to him, which is highly unlikely IMO.

Actually, exit interviews of Perot voters in '92 showed their 'second choice' if they hadn't voted for Perot was about equally divided between Bush the wiser and Clinton. But that unfairly discounts the early Perot effect, that criticism of Bush was warranted since he was getting it both from his right and his left.

XI
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind