All Hank, all the time.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Israeli intelligence.

Good choice. They've acquitted themselves well recently, after all.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
For now. We'll see if Lieberman remains as stubborn as Ralph Nader after he's had a few weeks to think about it. He's going to face a lot of pressure from party heavyweights,* and some financial pressure as well.

*I will add: figuratively and literally. Because otherwise Penske will post more stupid pictures of Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton sunbathing. Though he probably still will, of course.

He will face a lot of pressure. I have been on the other end of that phone call many times (trying to get a spoiler out of a race). But as a friend of mine once said, once somebody has decided to run for office they often become deaf to reason.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Liebermans support of the President cost him dearly even before this. It ruined his Presidential chances, and he was ridiculed and derided at almost all Democrat functions. He stood on principle and it cost him his seat. An act of courage.

What color is the sun on your world? Lieberman has been fawned over by Washington before, during and after the 2004 campaign. Every Senator lives in a bubble, but his was especially thick. Lieberman was so out of it that he initially attacked Lamont as a Republican:

• Lieberman's new ad... same DC consultant hit man, Carter Askew.... It portrays Lamont as a whining, hop-about baby who doesn't want to run against Lieberman because he previously gave Lieberman a campaign contribution. "But I agree with the Republicans 80 percent of the time!" cartoon Lamont protests in a shrill toddler's voice....
  
  Lieberman... [claims that Lamont] he sides with right-wing Republicans on the issues most important to Connecticut Democrats these days.... [T]the Lieberman team has pursued a strategy of relentlessly labeling Lamont the Republican. Why? Because 12 years ago, as a Greenwich selectman, he and other Democrats voted alongside Republicans on some non-ideological town issues.

If you like, I'll find the ads on YouTube. That's not courage. That's obtuseness.

Here's Josh Marshall on Lieberman, at TIME.com:

• The Lieberman camp says Joe stuck to his guns on Iraq notwithstanding the political perils or the unpopularity of the position in his party. But that doesn't quite cut it. True, he had to know he wasn't winning any points with the broad mass of Democrats around the country. And his embitterment against his party for his ignominious defeat in the 2004 presidential primaries probably made him more willing to court that displeasure. But I don't think Lieberman really understood the peril he was courting back home. Because if he had, he would have been more prepared for it. And he wasn't.
  
  Most politicians keep close tabs on what's happening back home and work assiduously to keep lines of communications open with the political players in their states or districts. They may get into trouble for any number of reasons. But if they're good at what they do, they don't get caught off guard. And no one was more caught unawares by what happened in the last two months than Joe Lieberman.
  
  Many pundits claim that Lieberman's defeat is a replay of the way Democrats tore themselves apart over Vietnam. It's an appealing thought for Republicans. And it has got nice drama. But those pundits are either being disingenuous or are caught in a time warp. Democrats are actually fairly united on the Iraq War in their opposition to it — which is actually where most Americans are right now. And though many Senators are not as full-throated in their opposition as the base of the party, you don't see any successful challenges being made against other Senators who aren't ready to bring the troops home. . . .
  .
  
  Lieberman got in trouble because he let himself live in the bubble of D.C. conventional wisdom and A-list punditry. He flattered them; and they loved him back. And as part of that club he was part of the delusion and denial that has sustained our enterprise in Iraq for the last three years. In the weeks leading up to Tuesday's primary, A-list D.C. pundits were writing columns portraying Lieberman's possible defeat as some sort of cataclysmic event that might foreshadow a dark new phase in American politics — as though voters choosing new representation were on a par with abolishing the Constitution or condoning political violence. But those breathless plaints only showed how disconnected they are from what's happening in the country at large. They mirrored his disconnection from the politics of the moment.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Good choice. They've acquitted themselves well recently, after all.

That's a huge assumption you make. It's not fact that Israeli intelligence didn't know what was going on in Lebanon, rather, Israel had chosen to remain off that battlefield after it pulled out of Lebanon the last time. The fact is, if Israel wanted to win in an unqualified fashion the battle would be over by now, regardless of whether its intelligence was perfect or less so. What constrains them is the combined force of the anti-semitic pro-terrorist movement in the MSM, W. Europe, the UN and the American left.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Israeli intelligence.

The folks who didn't realize that Hezbollah had cruise missiles?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you like, I'll find the ads on YouTube.

Do you bill for that service?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
That's a huge assumption you make. It's not fact that Israeli intelligence didn't know what was going on in Lebanon, rather, Israel had chosen to remain off that battlefield after it pulled out of Lebanon the last time. The fact is, if Israel wanted to win in an unqualified fashion the battle would be over by now, regardless of whether its intelligence was perfect or less so. What constrains them is the combined force of the anti-semitic pro-terrorist movement in the MSM, W. Europe, the UN and the American left.

Yes, but according to your theory we don't need an all-out battle.* We just need to drop a few bombs with pinpoint accuracy. And in that regard, Israeli intelligence has not done so well.




*And as I noted -- our soldiers are a little busy bringing democracy to Iraq.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Blah, Blah, Blah

It’s like you think if you throw enough crap at the board you think some if it might stick. You quote these idiots like somehow their credentials will trump reason.

Of course Lieberman tried to label Lamont a Republican. He was in a Democrat primary and that was Lamont's most useful criticism against him. It was a smart campaign tactic to try and turn that charge back on his opponent. It may not have been totally honest, but that has nothing to do with whether his stance on the war was courageous.

As for the second article, the only accurate thing he said was:

"True, he had to know he wasn't winning any points with the broad mass of Democrats around the country. And his embitterment against his party for his ignominious defeat in the 2004 presidential primaries probably made him more willing to court that displeasure."

Then the rest of it becomes sour grapes. He then criticizes Lieberman for not keeping in touch with his constituency. Please. Every Senator runs constant polls on his home district. Everyone without exception. Lieberman knew it wasn't popular with his base, yet he stuck with it. He obviously didn't expect an opponent to capitalize on their discontent but he knew what they were thinking. The writer pretty much critisizes Liebermam for not appealing to his constituents. But that is the courageous part about it, he knew he was pissing of his base and yet he stuck with it. And to claim he was doing it just to please the pundits, - give me a break. Politicians know more than anyone else that the pundits are a bunch of blowhards. Political hacks pay attention to them, but any successful politicians pays attention only to the ones that have a strong influence on their electorate. Lieberman could care less about the pundits that didn't have strong effect on his constituents.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Lieberman is courageous!

Originally posted by Ty
No, Lieberman is stubborn!

Um..... can y'all wake me when you're done?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You quote these idiots like somehow their credentials will trump reason.

Actually, I quote them without providing their credentials because I find what they say convincing.

Of course Lieberman tried to label Lamont a Republican. He was in a Democrat primary and that was Lamont's most useful criticism against him. It was a smart campaign tactic to try and turn that charge back on his opponent. It may not have been totally honest, but that has nothing to do with whether his stance on the war was courageous.

You're missing the point. If he was so worried about someone running to his left on the war, it doesn't make any sense that he would initially attack the guy as a Republican before reversing course 180 degrees and attacking him as an Al Sharpton Democrat. It suggests that Lieberman didn't bring his A game at the outset. As is obvious if you've seen the bear cub ad.

As for the second article, the only accurate thing he said was:

"True, he had to know he wasn't winning any points with the broad mass of Democrats around the country. And his embitterment against his party for his ignominious defeat in the 2004 presidential primaries probably made him more willing to court that displeasure."

Then the rest of it becomes sour grapes. He then criticizes Lieberman for not keeping in touch with his constituency. Please. Every Senator runs constant polls on his home district.

Do you know that Lieberman was? The point is, he wasn't bothering to keep in touch with his home district. He hadn't had a serious challenge in 18 years. He thought he could mail it in.

Lieberman could care less about the pundits that didn't have strong effect on his constituents.

Having seen him stroked by various pundits, I would disagree. I think Lieberman cared a whole lot more about what respected pundits thought of him than about what was going on in Connecticut. If you disagree, then we can agree to disagree. You might even convince me if you can describe whatever it is that led you to believe that he could care less.

As I said before, Lieberman failed to line up campaign staff until very recently. That is not the action of someone who is preparing to take a political hit for his courage. It's the action of someone who is out of touch.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, but according to your theory we don't need an all-out battle.* We just need to drop a few bombs with pinpoint accuracy. And in that regard, Israeli intelligence has not done so well.




*And as I noted -- our soldiers are a little busy bringing democracy to Iraq.

I didn't say just a few bombs. I did say tactical nukes, as I think that if we use nukes, and I think that should be on the table here, they should be used judiciously. As for other types of bombs, I would go with this part of my earlier post:

"and as much of their military apparatus as bombing can take out".

We don't necessarily need to limit that to a few or pinpoint accuracy, although I do think some measure of accuracy would be needed to take out Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, but I would be willling to roll the dice on Israeli intelligence pinpointing where he would be for some speech, maybe in front of their parliament, with enough lead time to let us do what we need to.

I am not advocating putting soldiers in Iran. Yet.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
It’s like you think if you throw enough crap at the board you think some if it might stick. You quote these idiots like somehow their credentials will trump reason.

2.

Speaking of which, has Quiggan weighed in on the CT senatorial election?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, but according to your theory we don't need an all-out battle.* We just need to drop a few bombs with pinpoint accuracy. And in that regard, Israeli intelligence has not done so well.




*And as I noted -- our soldiers are a little busy bringing democracy to Iraq.

Yes but isn't that expecting a little bit to much from an intelligence agency. It seems people don't understand these days that intelligence gathering is a really difficult and an inexact science. People expect a hundred percent accurate intelligence a hundred percent of the time. What they seem to forget is that the people that have the intelligence we want, don't want to give it up, and are also pretty good a spreading disinformation.

It was like when every Pundit in the United States critisized the US intelligence community for not knowing when the Pakistanis were going to test their missiles. It is like the CIA is expected to read everyone's minds.

As a friend of mine who is pretty high placed in the NSA told me, you would be surprized by how much we don't know.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes but isn't that expecting a little bit to much from an intelligence agency. It seems people don't understand these days that intelligence gathering is a really difficult and an inexact science. People expect a hundred percent accurate intelligence a hundred percent of the time. What they seem to forget is that the people that have the intelligence we want, don't want to give it up, and are also pretty good a spreading disinformation.

It was like when every Pundit in the United States critisized the US intelligence community for not knowing when the Pakistanis were going to test their missiles. It is like the CIA is expected to read everyone's minds.

As a friend of mine who is pretty high placed in the NSA told me, you would be surprized by how much we don't know.

2.

Even with imperfect intelligence, if we preemptively move, with an air war, on every place where we think they are up to something related to their nuke program we will start to move towards the path of resolving this problem in a far more effective way than the anti-Israel crowd at the UN or the future Islamic Republics of Weurope would have it resolved.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes but isn't that expecting a little bit to much from an intelligence agency. It seems people don't understand these days that intelligence gathering is a really difficult and an inexact science. People expect a hundred percent accurate intelligence a hundred percent of the time. What they seem to forget is that the people that have the intelligence we want, don't want to give it up, and are also pretty good a spreading disinformation.

It was like when every Pundit in the United States critisized the US intelligence community for not knowing when the Pakistanis were going to test their missiles. It is like the CIA is expected to read everyone's minds.

As a friend of mine who is pretty high placed in the NSA told me, you would be surprized by how much we don't know.

I understand this perfectly well. Which is why I reject Penske's notion that we have a simple military option of dropping a few bombs.