Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Rothschild wonders if martial law is coming.

Over at The Progressive web site, writer Matthew Rothschild wonders if George W. Bush's recent self-appointment to the role of "insurer of the continuation of Constitutional government in the event of a national emergency" translates into giving himself the power to declare martial law even if there is no real emergency. The directive, called the "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20", essentially allows the Shrub to determine what constitutes a national emergency. Like, for instance, a Democratic electoral victory in November 2008?

That's what Rothschild seems to think, given the Bush regime's already numerous violations of the Constitution and its dictatorial behavior. What the directive does is condense supreme power to a single branch of government. That is cause for extreme outrage, leading to action.

EDIT: I found this picture on the 'net and found it quite appropriate.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Why the failure last week matters.

Just how badly did the Democrats fuck up last week, when they caved in to the Shrub and wrote another blank check for his war? Cindy Sheehan quit. That's how badly. A woman who lost her son to this illegal and immoral war, who has spent every waking moment since then to try and hold the murderers of her son accountable, and who spent so much time trying to get Democrats to do their part and end this war...the woman who became a face of the anti-war movement has thrown up her hands in disgust and called it quits. She got the message, loud and clear: the so-called opposition party is so horse-whipped, so resigned to being the collective bitch of the Bush regime, that it is no use trying to salvage it anymore.

Congratulations, Democrats; you alienated the woman whose crusade against this war and its murderous architects who killed her boy helped get you elected to power after twelve years in the wilderness. Are you happy, now? Your collective silence will answer that question soon enough.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Make LIEberman a top priority for recall elections.

Last week the Rude Pundit wondered if the reason Senate Democrats caved in to the Shrub on funding the Iraq war was Joe LIEberman's threats to caucus with the GOP if they didn't do as the dictator told them. Now, apparently, there is no longer cause for wonder. LIEberman, bitch to Bush that he is, again threatened to caucus with the GOP again so that the Senate would be split and Dick Cheney would be able to take it over, thus throwing control of that body to the GOP. So I'm add his name to the top of the list of assholes and cowards to launch recall elections against.

Joe LIEberman -

Nancy Pelosi -

Steny Hoyer -

Rahm Emanuel -

David Obey -

Jack Murtha -

Ike Skelton -

John Conyers -

Harry Reid -

Robert Byrd -

Barack Obama -

Hillary Clinton -

Let us not forget, ladies and gentlemen, that Joe LIEberman is a fucking Republican. He is loyal, not to his constituents, the U.S. Constitution or the nation; rather, he is loyal to a dictator who has assumed for himself absolute power to run this country in contravention of its Constitution, the rule of law and the will of the people. The Connecticut GOPer, who lost the Democratic Party nomination for senate last year to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont, refused to take the message from his own constituents to step down and ran with Republican money and votes. He won, caucusing with the Democrats only so long as they surrender to the Shrub's demands. If they dare do anything that might actually oppose the dictator, he is prepared to drop the final pretense that he is anything other than a Republican stooge and cause the U.S. Senate to revert to GOP control. That is why he is at the top of the list, and will remain so.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

It's time for action by We the People.

A while back I explained what voters angry over Democratic inaction on ending the Iraq war and impeaching Bush & Co. can do to hold Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and key committee chairmen accountable for their failures. In light of the surrender to terrorism, by giving the terrorist-in-chief what he wants--another blank check for his war with no strings attached, Democrats have proven themselves incapable of doing what's right. So We the People must remove Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the committee chairmen who refuse to end the war and impeach Bush and Cheney. Below are the web sites (with contact information) for the following Congressional leaders:

Nancy Pelosi -

*Steny Hoyer -

*Rahm Emanuel -

David Obey -

Jack Murtha -

Ike Skelton -

John Conyers -

Harry Reid -

Robert Byrd -

*Barack Obama -

*Hillary Clinton -

Pelosi and Reid are prime for recall elections because, as the leaders of their party in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, they are in positions to influence what legislation comes up for debate and voting on the Floors of each chamber. They also tell the committee chairmen which legislation to allow out of committee. John Conyers is Chair of the Judiciary Committee (where the process of impeachment must begin). David Obey of Wisconsin heads up the Appropriations Committee, and Jack Murtha leads the subcommittee on appropriations for the Iraq war. Finally, Ike Skelton of Missouri heads the House Armed Services Committee. Robert Byrd of Virginia runs the Senate Appropriations Committee, Ted Kennedy is chairman of the Armed Services committee, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont heads Judiciary.

These eight members of Congress must be forced by their constituents to do what they promised to do last year, in the heat of election season. Our country is mired in a pointless, illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq that has brought us to our knees. The Bush regime has eroded or eliminated civil liberties, broken or ignored numerous laws, and violated our Constitution not once but repeatedly. We gave Democrats six months in which to end the war and impeach Bush and Cheney. They have refused to do the latter, which is infuriating enough; but to fail so spectacularly on the former, having made only a couple of half-hearted attempts, is simply unforgivable.

So here's what you can do: Visit the web sites for the aforementioned Congresspeople, take down their contact information and any information giving you an idea of the size and makeup of their districts, and pass it along to people who live in them. Help me tell them what they can do to gather petitions, find candidates, raise money and hold recall elections. As Keith Oblermann put it last night in his Special Comment, the surrender of Democrats to George W. Bush's horrendous war policies is a betrayal of the trust of Americans, who want this war ended--and ended NOW. We needn't, and shouldn't, wait until November 2008 to see Democrats voted back out of power. And that will happen, unless they do as We the People demand and end the Iraq war. But to those leaders who let us down, we can and should remove them from office now. Whatever the chances for success, recall elections against key Democratic leaders are the only means by which We the People can convince them how serious we are that they bring an end to the shameful travesty in the Middle East that Bush and his gargoyle started on the basis of greed and lies.

Holding recall elections may seem extreme, and the effort may not succeed. But that's not the point. The point is that Americans are fed up, not only with this war and the criminals who started it and--out of pure, stubborn spite--refuse to end it, but with those cowards in the Legislature who through their own inability to act have become complicit in that war. Recall efforts are perhaps the last, best effort We the People can make to show just how serious we are. It may be the last, best way to get Democrats to do their Constitutional duty.

Below, I have posted Keith Olbermann's special comment from last night. He gave voice to what America is feeling right now, and it is something that should be used to help move us all to action.

EDIT: I've removed Leahy and Kennedy from the list, since both of them voted against giving Bush another blank check for the war. I've added Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel to the list since, being party leaders, they not only voted for the blank check but got their buddies in the conservative wing of the Democratic Party to go along with continuing to fund the war. Murtha remains on the list, because he voted for giving Bush another blank check. And Obey remains on it, because he allowed it out of committee in the first place. Although Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton ultimately voted against the blank check, they had to be shamed into it by fellow senator and presidential candidate Chris Dodd, and they only voted against it after it had become clear it was going to pass the Senate. Had they voted 'no' early, they might have helped convince fence-sitters to vote 'no' as well, thus reducing the number of senators who again voted for the war (I say might have, because we'll never know how they would have voted had Obama and Clinton cast their votes early on instead of waiting until the process was nearly over). So they're on the list, just to keep them on their toes. MAKE those two losers EARN the nomination they so desire.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

What was it all for?

We, the voting public, elected Democrats to power last November on a tide of rising anger and frustration at the stubborn refusal of George W, Bush and Dick Cheney to follow orders and end this war they started in Iraq. We elected Democrats to power so that they might, finally, grow spines and impeach the dictators who have dragged this country down to their animalistic level. And, after months of hemming and hawing, what did they do? The Democrats caved in on ending the Iraq war, acquiescing to the will of the dictator.

What did We the People bleed and sweat and break our backs for? What did we gain? Apparently, nothing at all. Nothing but more of the same, meek capitulation to the will of a boy-king who has had it proven to him time and again that there is no one--absolutely no one--who will ever tell him "no" and make it stick. No one who will ever lift a finger to stop him from getting away with murder, no one will ever punish him for his multitude of crimes.

If Democrats will not end the war in Iraq, and if they will not impeach Bush and Cheney, they will lose in next year's elections--and they deserve to. And how many lives are going to be lost, that could have been saved months ago if Democrats had had even an ounce of courage? That is the sickest part of the unfunny joke that is the American government: people are dying, and will continue to die, that shouldn't have to. And the Democrats are too fucking pussified to do anything about it.

Friday, May 18, 2007

They should have fired him.

Paul Wolfowitz, a chief architect of the Iraq war and the epitome of corruption, resigned his post as president of the World Bank yesterday in a deal with the international aid institution's board that allows him to be absolved of any wrongdoing in violating bank rules--in spite of that same board's official ruling that he did, in fact, violate bank rules by giving his employee-girlfriend an undeserved and unearned promotion and raise. They should have just fired his sorry, punk ass. They had the authority, and the right, and they should have let Wolfowitz endure that humiliation which he had earned for himself.

To recap: When he was appointed president of the World Bank, Wolfowitz abused his position to give his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, a promotion and a raise that the employee neither earned or deserved. Riza had previously been passed over for the post in question because she was unqualified for it. So Wolfowitz, long accustomed to breaking the rules and getting away with it, did just that. He used his influence as the World Bank's president to move her into the position she desired, cutting the bank out of the decision-making process (and proceeded to give Riza a raise in pay that far exceeded what anyone else would have been entitled to). Last week, the board found that Wolfowitz had indeed violated a number of bank rules. His refusal to resign led to a showdown in which the bank's credibility had been placed in jeopardy--all because he is a selfish, soulless creature who thinks, just like everyone else in the Bush regime, that he is above the rules and shouldn't be punished for breaking them. Wolfowitz, like his comrades in the regime, lacks that one critical element that separates human beings from other animals: a conscience.

So why did the World Bank, after weeks of a standoff in which its very ability to perform its duties as a body that provides aid to countries in need, let him off the hook with a full exoneration--in direct contradiction of its previous finding? If Wolfowitz did nothing wrong, as the terms of this face-saving deal (for him) states, then why was he forced to resign? That's the question David Corn asks at The Nation. The World Bank, anxious to avoid a final showdown by firing Wolfowitz with its ability to do so, lied in order to get him to go in a manner that made things easier for itself. And the result is that the financial institution's credibility has suffered even more: for first having issued an honest ruling that found a violator of bank rules in violation of those rules, and then making a deal with that violator that dishonestly clears him of wrongdoing for the sake of expediency.

As John Nichols--also of The Nation--writes (rather angrily, which is understandable under the circumstances), '[a]s the poet, anti-apartheid campaigner and long-time champion of African development Dennis Brutus says, "Wolfowitz's arrogance, his insistence that any problems were the result of his colleagues' actions, never his own, were a perfect match for the World Bank, which has always refused to take responsibility for its own disastrous policies and projects, laying blame instead with the borrowing country, even though the common denominator in so many botched projects, violations of human rights, and failed policy packages has been the presence of the World Bank. The combination of war and economic crimes for which he was responsible, made Wolfowitz an appropriate symbol for the institution."'

Nichols goes on to write, 'When he had finished scheming to – in his words -- "take proper advantage" of the 9-11 attacks by creating the quagmire that is Iraq, there really was no place for Wolfowitz to go but the World Bank. He had the perfect resume: As blind to the suffering of others as George Bush, as foul-mouthed as Dick Cheney, as manipulative as Karl Rove, as delusional as Donald Rumsfeld, he was perfectly qualified for the move from making war on the poor with bombs to making war on the poor with "structural-adjustment" policies.'

It seems now that the World Bank really isn't any different than Wolfowitz, the latter of which is about as corrupt and evil as it can get; by refusing to fire him, and instead choosing to make a board room deal that lets Wolfowitz off the hook for deliberately violating its rules, the World Bank has proven as much. And now the bank's already devastated credibility is hurt even further. Wolfowitz went there with the intention, not of cleaning up any corruption, but of usurping it for his own morally bankrupt personal schemes.

So now he's gone, but the taint he left behind remains. And the World Bank let it happen, helping its soon-to-be-former liar-in-chief murder the Truth once again. If the bank really wanted to resolve this scandal properly, it should have shown true integrity by firing Wolfowitz instead of letting him get away with his misdeeds.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Right-wing liar, fraud, con man and political hack Jerry Falwell has finally done something truly good: he has relieved the world of his tiresome presence.

Donation Request.

You'll have noticed the new feature in the left-hand column for making donations. I am looking for grant money with which to accomplish two projects: making a documentary about a local landmark in Cuyahoga County, and the long-term goal of transforming the Truth Zone into a web site that contains investigative reporting, media and government dog-watching, progressive theses, op-ed columns, networking, and a new IPB discussion forum. All of this requires money, which is the one element I lack. As I have said, I am looking for grant money with which to accomplish this goal. But my chances of obtaining the necessary funds through that route are slim, and I need to be able to find it from a diverse array of sources.

So I am asking for donations (minimum is $5.00 USD). By donating to this cause, you can be part of a new and exciting project that will allow for the dissemination of the Truth to a wider readership base. If this is something you believe in, I would greatly appreciate your donation. Thank you.

(In case the button in the left-hand column doesn't work, here it is again.)

Monday, May 14, 2007

Rove was in it up to his bloated neck.

An article posted on MSNBC's web site, courtesy of the Washington Post, describes how Karl Rove pushed the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales to politicize prosecutions and use the department to purge voter rolls of Democrats. According to the article, "[n]early half the U.S. attorneys slated for removal by the administration last year were targets of Republican complaints that they were lax on voter fraud, including efforts by...Karl Rove to encourage more prosecutions of election-law violations, according to new documents and interviews."

The distinction between vote fraud and voter fraud is this: vote fraud involves rigging votes, but voter fraud involves individuals who vote illegally. The throwing away of Democratic votes and the purging of poor and minority voters from the rolls, by Katherine Harris in Florida and Ken Blackwell in Ohio, falls into the former category; Ann Coulter casting an illegal ballot falls into the latter (though the FBI later would help the far right-wing liar escape charges). Rove knew, just as his fellow GOPers did, that there was nothing to the accusations of voter fraud. Unfortunately for the fired prosecutors, they knew this, too. And when they refused to pursue baseless accusations by Republicans whose political seats were in jeopardy during last year's midterm elections, Gonzales fired them on orders from the White House.

So the scandal is still going strong. And it may be harder now for Rove to fight a Congressional subpoena to testify under oath about his involvement in it.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

The boy gets his first real sit-down lecture.

When Richard Nixon had pushed his power-grabbing and obstruction of justice too far in the wake of the Watergate scandal, when Congress was drawing up the Articles of Impeachment against him for high crimes, some Republicans finally had to sit him down and explain what was happening outside his inner circle: that he was bringing the whole Republican Party down with him, and if he didn't resign the GOP would probably lose the White House (as well as any chance of future control of Congress) for a very, very long time. The boy who had turned the presidency into his own personal delusion of monarchy was told in no uncertain terms that if he didn't step down, he'd be taken down. And he'd drag the party down with him. So Nixon, perhaps wising up for the first and only time in his wretched existence, resigned the presidency. He did it because the Republicans were scared if he didn't, they would lose what power they'd managed to obtain and never get it back again.

But that sit-down came only after years of a presidency in which Nixon had committed numerous high crimes, with little real opposition until he went too far and the Democrats had had enough--and were preparing to impeach him. Until that moment of reckoning, when he had exhausted all his alliances, it truly did not occur to the boy that his childish quest for absolute power at any cost (so long as somebody else paid the price for it) had done so much damage. It wasn't until some grownups finally sat him down and explained--firmly--that he had screwed up so very badly that Nixon decided it was time to think of someone else before himself.

A similar moment may have come yesterday for the Shrub, when eleven Republican members of Congress sat him down and told him he'd lost whatever shreds of credibility he might have had with them, and that his stubborn refusal to obey the will of the public was hurting the party. These eleven represent districts that are vulnerable in next year's elections, and which could very well go Democrat because of the growing backlash against the Shrub. I don't think they told him to resign, and I'm not sure if they mentioned firing Cheney, Gonzales or Wolfowitz, but the very fact that they had to have such a sit-down with their party's little tin dictator and explain to him that they now view him as someone who cannot be taken at his word on anything is a significant development.

The Articles of Impeachment have not yet been drafted against George W. Bush, but they have been introduced against Dick Cheney--and those articles have gained co-sponsors. It is no laughing matter anymore to suggest that the level of disgust with the regime has grown to the point where members of the dictator's own party are effectively calling him a liar and that he's hurting their chances of retaining their hold on power. Nor can the ever-mounting calls for impeachment be dismissed anymore as the mere ravings of extremists, for support for impeachment among the public is over fifty percent and climbing.

So some grownups have finally sat this boy down and explain a few things to him. Time will tell if he actually bothered to listen, but it's doubtful that he did. But one thing is certain: the Shrub no longer enjoys the level of support from his own party that he once did, and it is evident in the way the GOP candidates vying for their party's presidential nomination are making a big show of distancing themselves from him. I'll have more to say about how the GOP bears as much responsibility for the current state of the nation, and the party's troubles, in a future entry.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

And their priorities are...

Madness isn't just doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results; it's also standing by corrupt, criminal and incompetent assholes while ignoring real threats and real problems that lead to our nation being more vulnerable. While the Bush White House is defending Paul Wolfowitz and Alberto "I'm a clueless little storm trooper" Gonzales, six men tried to attack an army base in New Jersey, and a report has come out that the CIA failed to take action against Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, who is notorious for selling nuclear secrets to rogue regimes (including North Korea). Khan was able to get away with his proliferation activities because, as reported by Greg Palast, his ties to the Saudis earned him a kill order from the Bush regime on investigating his activities.

Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia, and in the days following the attacks Bush & Co. had members of the bin Laden family flown out of the country for their protection. It was largely because of the regime's negligence and protection of long time friends and cronies that 9/11 was able to happen. And, it seems, that same protection of cronies has nearly allowed another attack on U.S. soil. That the Bush regime's priorities lie not with protecting the country, but with protecting those harming or seeking to harm it, should be enough to warrant impeachment.

You'd think...

With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq going so monumentally badly, you'd think there'd be someone in the Bush White House with sense enough to abandon plans to attack Iran. But no, like a stubborn and spoiled child who won't stop acting like the neighborhood bully, the Bush regime refuses to take the prospect of war with Iran off the table. Considering the weakened state of our military from the botched policies coming out of the Pentagon, you'd think someone would have courage enough to tell the Shrub and his gargoyle that getting into a third war is sheer lunacy and should be avoided. But never let it be said that the Bush regime values logic--or anything else besides amassing obscene amounts of wealth for the super-rich, and continuing its impossible drive to establish global empire.

Monday, May 07, 2007


There comes a time when enough is enough, when you've taken as much as you can take and you draw a line in the sand. For tornado-devastated Greensburg, Kansas, that time may be approaching sooner rather than later. According to Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, the Iraq war has hampered the state's ability to handle the destruction inflicted by Mother Nature. Emergency vehicles and other equipment that would ordinarily go to clean-up and rescue efforts have been sent off to Iraq to be wasted.

I can't imagine this sort of thing happened during WWII. As much as our nation gave to the war effort then, we didn't neglect our emergency services at home. How low have we sunk as a nation, when we can't even supply ourselves with the people and the resources to handle natural disasters?

Sunday, May 06, 2007

France elects an asshole, Bush gets even more unpopular, and Democrats might be getting their act together on Iraq.

France decided it liked having a conservative government, as the nation elected Nicolas Sarkozy president. The French president-elect promised, among other things, to weaken unions and undermine the country's 35-hour work week. Sarkozy also appears intent on becoming the French version of Tony Blair, sucking up to U.S. dictator George W. Bush.*

And speaking of the Shrub, his popularity has dropped once again, to 28% in the latest Newsweek poll, according to Reuters. More and more Americans are waking up to the reality that the Shrub is a stubborn, selfish, egotistical asshole who has no problem murdering more of our nation's soldiers just to satisfy his imperial ambitions. Whether Democrats realize that support for removing the dictator and his gargoyle is strong enough to warrant giving it a try is up in the air. But there are some signs they're not yet willing to just hand the Shrub another blank check for his war.

*: EDIT (May 7) - John Nichols over at The Nation disagrees that Sarkozy will be Bush's lap dog. I've yet to see Mr. Nichols proven wrong in a political analysis, but my gut is telling me to keep an eye open. We'll see what happens. Also, I had mis-attributed Sarkozy's country of birth to Hungary. His father was born there, but Sarkozy himself was born in Paris, France.

Friday, May 04, 2007

My, what a surprise.

Never let it be said that George W. Bush cares about women and people of different sexual orientations. The little twerp is threatening to veto a new anti-hate crime bill, because it includes protection for women and gays. The Shrub has vetoed only two pieces of legislation in his entire tenure as dictator: a bill to fund stem cell research, and a bill funding his own war. Is it just me, or is a pattern now emerging?

Democrats will never get any of their legislation passed, unless they allow the GOP to completely gut it. And even if it survives the legislative process intact, such legislation will not survive a veto. So the Iraq war will go on, Bush will probably start a war with Iran, and the Democratic Congress won't be able to get anything done between now and January 2009--or afterward, for that matter.

It's time for Democrats to find their backbones and impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It's obvious that these two have committed high crimes, even treason, and as long as they hold the White House they will keep breaking the law and blocking the will of the American people. Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment against Cheney have already gained co-sponsors. There is no further excuse for Congress not doing its sworn duty.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Don't give the spoiled brat anything, then.

So George W. Bush has vetoed a supplemental spending bill for his war of choice, because it contained a tepid timeline for withdrawal. Gee, I guess that means he doesn't want any money for the war he started without need, and which he fucked up so bad it is now impossible to continue much less win. Because let's face it, Democrats would be truly stupid to cave in to the Shrub on setting timelines for ending the war--a promise they'd break at the cost of next year's elections. And while they may be weak, frightened and more concerned with the politics of convenience than in doing what's right, stupid is one thing they are not.

In the stare-down over funding George W. Bush's war, the Shrub is the one in a position to blink first. He knows that as long as no spending bill passes, he'll get no funding at all to continue it. And then he'll have to begin withdrawing troops, or risk the ire of a very angry public for abandoning them there with no equipment or pay. No one is fooled anymore into believing Bush supports the military, after Walter Reed and cuts to the V.A., and having short-changed them on body armor and training (among other things). All he can do is blame Democrats for doing what he himself has done unrestrained for four years. Now that something resembling grownups are in charge of Congress, he is throwing a temper tantrum.

Here's what Democrats should do: pass a firm timeline for withdrawal in the House of Representatives, say by August of this year, and then go public saying that since Bush vetoed the last spending bill it must mean he's ready to end the war. They should also say to the Senate if that body doesn't pass such a bill intact, then no more spending bills on the Iraq war will be brought up, and the House will not pass any bill from the Senate continuing to fund the war--either way, funding for the war will be cut off. Bush has a choice, he can either sign a bill funding an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, or be responsible for leaving our soldiers over there to find their own way back.

That's what Democrats ought to do. For six years, Bush and his Republican bitches in Congress mismanaged this war to the point that even achieving their aim of establishing a global empire run by the U.S. is now impossible. They wrote blank checks to contractors favored by the regime, who took the money and defrauded both our country and our military. Passing a spending bill that actually supplies our soldiers with what they need to stay alive, and get whatever job it is they're supposed to be doing over there done, is something Congress is duty-bound to do. But since the Shrub wants to throw a temper tantrum, then let him get no money at all for his war. True, he can still veto spending bills knowing there aren't enough votes in Congress to overrule him. But neither can he get another blank check. In this, Democrats are in a rare position to make him back down and do as he is told.

The whole debate over war funding can be summed up in the following analogy: a spoiled child receives his usual birthday present, but because the wrapper is blue instead of red, refuses the gift. Well, since he doesn't want what's inside just because he doesn't like the wrapper, why give it to him at all then? Return the present for a refund, and let him scream his fool head off. Better yet, bend him over your knee and spank him, then send him to bed without any supper.

(In other news, Bush's illegal wiretapping is running into a stumbling block. It seems more senators are balking at the notion of letting the dictator spy on Americans without cause or warrant.)

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Oh, this is rich...

Not content to abuse his "independent" status to force Senate Democrats to back down against the Bush regime and the neoconservative political agenda, Joe LIEberman is now threatening a "third party" run for the White House.

Joe Lieberman said Monday a third-party candidate could emerge to shake things up in the 2008 presidential race unless the two major parties tackle the growing problem of partisan polarization that alienates many voters.

It is a sick joke for a senator who has done so much to polarize the nation and engage in partisan politics (in favor of neoconservative Republicans, remember) to now call for an end to the very thing he uses to further widen the political divide in this country.