If he can’t put interests of the U.S. above the interests of Israel, i don’t think he belongs in the U.S. Senate.

(Note: Remember when everyone was freaking out that if JFK were elected, he’d get his marching orders from the Pope? Probably not, you’re way too young.)

I’m not religious, but it was Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who brought me into Obama camp. So it now amuses me to think that if Obama really is a sincere, practicing Christian, maybe his stance toward Lieberman is a way of demonstrating (to the pro-Israeli hawk) the power of Christianity (vs. the old eye-for-an-eye law of retribution). Altho’ I’m probably silly & naive even to toy with this idea, your latest post actually brought it into sharper relief.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Love,
Abe….145 years ago TODAY

There’s a little more to it, though. The HSC combined with the Committee on Governmental Affairs in 2005, meaning that now it’s both talking about security issues AND investigating the government itself. Lieberman’s chaired it since 2006. Have you heard anything concerning a Senate investigation on Bush’s corruption?

Now, what about when Obama’s president?

i don’t know a thing about how Washington works, but any committee that’s called the Homeland Security Committee must have been created during Bush years, no? So what’s the chance that that the committee itself could be eliminated? Or that its serious (and, under Lieberman, neglected) responsibilities could be transferred to a new, yet-to-be created committee, one with someone at the helm who is loyal to the country, leaving Benedict Arnold Lieberman to play in his own little sandbox?

Could something like that happen? Even under the wussy Democrats? Is that just too, too far-fetched?