Informant38

tugged that feather loose:

But let's be clear: Lieberman fascinates political junkies because he's an outlier, like an albino rhino or the last of the Mohicans. And his loss doesn't usher in a new reality so much as confirm the familiar one.

link fixedGoldberg/LATimes 10.Aug.06
link busy3
-
Some of us were saying, way back in '03, that the invasion of Iraq had something more to do with the geographical boundaries of an Israeli comfort-zone than merely oil and American Empire, while admitting that those were plausible strong motives for the pigs men who actually made the decisions and held public accountability for them.
Public in a context where 50% of the American citizenry think Saddam Hussein had WMD's and was harboring Al Qaeda and was somehow responsible for 9/11. And a context, as well, where a growing number believe the events in the Middle East are heading the world straight toward Armageddon and the Rapture.
This idea was dismissed as anti-Semitic paranoia.
Ned Lamont's on record as approving the bombing of Lebanon, without reservations of any kind.
Then, later, some of us were saying that eventually Bush would be wrapped up in a shroud of responsibility for the Iraq debacle and carted off-stage, so that a new non-Bush - clear, fresh, clean, an heroic opposing force - could be ushered in.
Meet the new boss.
That this describes any oppositional player is only confusing to people who are used to the sports-analog of virtual politics; where you pick your team - only one of two - and wear your colors, make your bets and cheer until the final score, then go home or change the channel.
The idea being to get someone to do the nasty job, then get rid of them - or even better, allow the hoodwinked to get rid of them, so they feel empowered - so that not only does the nasty job get done, but the next player up gets to look like a savior.
The actual amount of intrigue necessary to pull that off is pretty minimal compared to Franklin-Feith et al.
Intrigue which is well-documented, and ongoing.