This response is to Marie + Sam who may have
responded to me. As I meant to say in the first place, Iraq is less than 1% of our nation’s problem. But why are we there in the first place?

Let me try out what, at first, may seem to be the simplistic product of someone afflicted with an early frontal lobotomy. And why not, since most of
our nation’s pseudo-Christian preachers seem to suffer from the same affliction…         

Someone once said something to the effect that sound political leadership finally comes down to the question of moral character. I put it to you bluntly that we are in Iraq primarily because of commander-in-chief vanity. Oil & Anti-Terrorist exhibitionism + Fascist/Republican power plays are important motivations too.

Vanity? How so? You take an illegal president, with a third rate mind and no moral integrity,
who knows he is unfit for public trust, and you will find an elder son’s compulsion to show up
his “Big Daddy!” This illuminates the compulsion
to indulge in 4th rate behavior.

The end result is: “Ha! Ha! Ha! I got rid of
Saddam when you couldn’t do it!” That it took
Bush/Cheney lies, and grovelling Congressional
submission to produce a no win situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and everywhere else on the globe does not matter. Only power and national exposure
with our sewerrat major media counts with sadists like George W.

I think over half our presidents have truly been
mediocrities. But I cannot recall any 50 year period like ours when we have had so many crooks
like Nixon + Butch #1 + Butch #2 ruling us.   

But vanity also rode high in the saddle with
Lyndon Johnson who declared, just before the Vietnam War heated up, that he was not going to be the first U.S. president to be defeated in a foreign war. And he wasn’t. That honor was left to Crook Nixon after hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilian men,women and children were butchered, and much of our very own gutless citizenry every evening consumed the latest TV news of the far-away daily body counts while they gobbled their little TV dinners.

That Nixon got stuck with the loss was fitting, since it was the bloodiest U.S. Secretary in American history,John Foster Dulles, chosen by the Republican reactionaries for the rather stupid and vain Eisenhower, who destroyed the 1954 Geneva peace agreement for Indo-China and traded it in for 20 years of American butchery in the Eastern Pacific region.

  American citizens are ultimately responsible of course. Our propensity for voting for moral trash much like ourselves for President appears to be an absurd, tho hidden craving like rats after D-Con.

Possibly the worst example of this compulsion, after the 2 Butch #2 elections, was the 1972 election - Crook Nixon 49 vs. McGovern 1. A year later, Massachusetts true patriotic bumper stickers were boasting: “Don’t blame me! I’m from Massachusetts!” as the Watergate scandals exploded.

I must confess, during that political brawl, the best bumper sticker I ever saw, was in the Boston area that read: “Impeach the Cox-Sacker!”

None of you age 33 or less were even born then. Try asking your parents or grandparents what that sticker meant. Or some old fogie from eastern Mass. It would be better to ask an old-time Democrat. The old Republican farts back there often pretend to forget.

In closing, this is the tragedy of democratic rule for ages. Even those of you age 15 in 1973 and now age 48, cannot be expected to remember a past you never experienced.

So how could you ever share my passion and revolutionary fury? Cheer up! I don’t expect you to!

But it is important for you all to acquire that “fire in the mind and fire in the belly” of your very own.

Those of you who do so are sure, in the long journey, to find comfort in the words of the ancient Aristotle -”...those who once set foot upon the upward path, do not turn back again toward darkness - but seek the light forever!”

Ion C. Laskaris, Burlington,Vt. + iclrevusa.com

What’s interesting to me is that Sen. Lieberman seems to be getting much more attention for his position on the Iraq war than Rep.Chris Shays or Rep. Rob Simmons (I’m not sure what Rep. Nancy Johnson’s position on the war is).  It would be sadly ironic that Sen. Liberman loses, but Rep. Shays and Rep. Simmons win because of an overfocus on Sen. Lieberman by the Democratic activists at the expense of taking out Rep. Shays and Simmons.  Let’s remember, fellow Democrats, it’s the Republicans that are keeping us out of power.

Lamont may have his obvious limitations as a candidate, but the message value of forcing Looserman to run an independent campaign will have nationwide political significance.  Incumbent pols will have to start taking antiwar sentiment seriously. Something neither party has done to this point. 

Looserman is the correct crypto-Republican to be taking on. He has been sucking up to the GOP since I can’t remember.  He is member of the infamous GANG OF 14 that threw away the filibuster and allowed the packing of the Court.  If for no other reason Lamont deserves Conn. Dems support so we can stop the carnage.

It comes as no surprise that Lamont may well
be a democratic-lite one issue candidate. The only
reason to back such a mental midget is to kill off
a Liebermouth who is a Fascist/Republican in
Democratic drag.

The Dem. leadership in the Big Conn. appears as passive and gutless as the national DLC.

If Lamont was nervous, it must be because he lacks
the knowledge of the degenerate state of our nation and the viscious destruction of it by the
corrupt corporate capitalist system. This is, and
has long been “the Axis of Evil” in this land.
Without this understanding he is too much of an
intellectual runt of the litter to have a capacity for moral outrage.

In reality, the war in Iraq is less than 1% of our troubles. And baby Lamont will prove to be
less than 1% of the solution.

Ion C. Laskaris,Burlington,Vt. + iclrevusa.com

The basic question in Connecticut , as everywhere else in America, is who does one’s representative serve,  self or the people.  And it doesn’t matter what a politician did or didn’t do in the past because every day the slate is wiped clean and the question is what will a politician do for her/her constituents this very day..  And it just happens that in Connecticut now,  as elsewhere in our beloved land,  a politician will be judged by her/his position on the Iraq war.  Adios Joe,  and good riddence.

If war is the issue, then why don’t YOU tell us why we are there in Iraq, Marie, I mean if the candidates won’t talk about it?

We all know why LIEberman wanted to go to war: Israel had retaliation coming from a Saddam Hussein who was no longer encumbered by sanctions and no fly zones, and LIEberman is likely more of an Israelite than he is a Republican, though we have all known since his toadying to Fred Thompson so as to screw Clinton that Joey was a turncoat of the Gene Taylor (D-MS) sort.

But that isn’t why the Bushitters and the Kerrys and the rest of the warmongering Democrats wanted to occupy Iraq . . . stealing oil is almost as important to them as being reelected, though nothing can or ever will surpass that priority.

It doesn’t matter though that Lamont looks like a Gray Davis type of candidate: someone who will lose to a bone stupid hulk if the voters are given a chance to do something else stupid like vote for the moronic George Bush or for Tom DuhLay or for another moron like Inhofe or a worse one like Snotorum.

There were two reasons to be very fearful about Al Gore as President of the United States: (1) Elian Gonzalez, and (2) Joey LIEberman. Gore showed woeful judgment on both issues. The very best thing the public could possibly do about LIEberman is make him go away and not come back, but that means they likely will reelect him as the poor idiots in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania do their morons every 6 years.

It’s about oil. Everything is today.