Le sigh. It’s the situation most of us on the left didn’t want to look at: Joe Lieberman considering a caucus with the GOP.

He was asked about the possibility that he might switch caucuses if he became uncomfortable as Democrats sought to enforce party discipline, particularly if the GOP offered to keep him as a committee chairman and respect his seniority.

“I’m not ruling it out, but I hope I don’t get to that point. And, and I must say, and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut, nobody ever said, ‘We’re doing this because we, we want you to switch over,’ ” he said.

This is a power grab, that’s all it is. Holy Joe is waiting to see which side is willing to help him the most. Whichever party will scratch his back the nicest is going to get the majority in the Senate. And when that happens, the Democrats are going to be far more vehemently against him than they were previously.

Joe’s career is being characterized by wanting power. He refused to step down when he lost the primary because being a Senator was more important than what his party wanted. Now he’s going to hold out for the best deal because power is more important than caucusing with the party he’s pledged loyalty to all this time.

Shameless. And the sad part is, the Democrats have to play ball or they could lose the Senate.

Well this is an interesting read. It appears that while Bush said he didn’t know Rumsfeld was leaving and he hadn’t met with his replacement, at the very least, he had a few days before the elections.

On the Sunday before the elections, Robert Gates, the president of Texas A&M University and the deputy national-security adviser and CIA director in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, drove two hours from College Station, Texas, to the small town of McGregor, where he switched from his own car to one driven by White House chief of staff Josh Bolten. Gates was quietly taken to President George W. Bush’s office on his ranch at Crawford, where the two talked long enough to convince Bush that Gates was the man to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Now, for Gates to make that trip means that the prospect of his replacing Rumsfeld was fairly major. That it was so secretive means the obvious: he didn’t want anyone to know it was going on. In the press conference after the elections, Bush makes it sound like he wasn’t seriously considering Rumsfeld stepping down, but this seems to undermine that.

The full article is fairly interesting as well. I really do wonder how much of Bush’s insistence that the war is going well is tied to his stubbornness and refusal to admit mistakes. Like I said, this one cost Republicans Congress.

I already wrote about the push from Democrats to pulling troops out of Iraq, but I want to link to this NY Times article just to focus on this part, courtesy of chief of staff Josh Bolton:

But Mr. Bolten said he could not envision the White House signing on to a plan setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops.

“You know, we’re willing to talk about anything,” he said on “This Week.” “I don’t think we’re going to be receptive to the notion there’s a fixed timetable at which we automatically pull out, because that could be a true disaster for the Iraqi people. But what we’ve always been prepared to do, and remain prepared to do, is indeed what Senators Levin and Biden were talking about, is put pressure on the Iraqi government to take over themselves.”

No timetable. We hear it constantly from the mouth of every war supporter. If we set a timeline, then it will lead to disaster in Iraq. The terrorists will hide in their holes until we leave and then start murdering people by the billions, possibly trillions.

But there’s a major logic gap in this: a timetable is going to have to happen at some point. Some day in the future, the United States is going to have to say “we are going to be entirely out of Iraq by this date.” And before that we’re going to have to say “we’re going to have half the troops out by this date.” It is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE, to withdraw without setting a date.

What is Bush or Bolton expecting to happen? That the Iraqis will slowly start to take over and then all in one day we’ll just up and leave? Not gonna happen. At some point something along this line will need to be said: “There are now 10 full Iraqi divisions fully capable of defending the country, so we will stand down.” Following that, a date for this “standing down” will have to happen.

The “no timetables” mantra is a “never leave” mantra. I would like to hear the logistical plan for leaving Iraq that involves never setting a single date. Gradually withdrawing one troop at a time until we aren’t there any more?

Go back to this bit:

But what we’ve always been prepared to do, and remain prepared to do, is indeed what Senators Levin and Biden were talking about, is put pressure on the Iraqi government to take over themselves.

Okay, great. We put pressure on the government to take over. Then what? Then we have to leave. How? We say that they can take over and then just leave. It’s said as though our military can decide to pull troops out and have them all gone that afternoon.

As I said, there’s one reason Bush doesn’t want to set a timetable. It’s not because it’d be dangerous, it’s not because he doesn’t want to compromise security. He just doesn’t want to be the one who has to do it.

I find the ultimate irony of 2006 to be that despite all of their clamoring, the republicans’ Senate loss was based on things like the Iraq War and domestic spying, things which were once considered the cornerstones of keeping America safe, while the Democrats are actually going to be making America safe.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who will become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told reporters last week he would seek to boost funding for rail and mass transit; strengthen security regulations for chemical plants and container cargo; and implement what he said were a number of recommendations from the Sept. 11 commission that remained unaddressed.

I want you to pause and consider that statement. After the 5th anniversary of 9/11, the administration that has done nothing but squawk about how we must remember the lives lost and attack democrats for having a policy of “terrorists win” has not followed every single recommendation of the 9/11 commission.

He hasn’t caught the Al Qaeda leaders, he hasn’t followed the 9/11 commission recommendations, and he hasn’t done anything to stop the same kind of attack on America. And yet he has the gall to call the left weak on terrorism. By the way, what are those recommendations?

He said four of them were: completing the move to risk-based allocation of federal homeland security grants, away from what he called “pork-barrel” allocations; implementing spectrum changes to enable interoperable first responder communications; countering the spread of nuclear and other non-conventional weapons; and engaging in a battle for the “hearts and minds” of Muslims.

Hm. That last one strikes me as a bit tricky with a president who just wants to cavort around conquering “Islamic fascists” left and right, but hey. I’m optimistic.