The moment I saw George Bush cozying up to Joe Lieberman, I had a feeling that Lieberman was toast.
Understand, I was never that wild about Lieberman. Whenever I heard him speak I always felt like I was being scolded by a dyspectic rabbi. It says something, though, that Bush gets himself reelected despite being the originator of his wildly unpopular policies (or at least the perpetrator of the policies he’s told to institute) but those who wind up supporting those policies get killed in elections. Remember the day that Kerry said he would have voted the same way in the Iraqi question even if he knew then what he knew now, and I said that right then, right there, he’d just lost the election even though it wasn’t for another three months? We’re seeing a fascinating example of a classic truth: That Americans are reluctant to switch Commanders in Chief during war (naturally one of the great benefits of Bush launching it) but apparently we’re now seeing they sure don’t mind dumping anyone else who was in favor of it.
It’s almost as if the current crop of Democrats have neither a chance nor a clue. To put it in Lieberman terms, it may be that the entire generation of Democrats have to die out (i.e., be voted out) and a new generation of young turks with little experience, but no ties to the misbegotten launching of the war before they’ll be allowed to enter the promised land.
PAD
• 
I still can’t help thinking of the worst-case scenario, which is that Lieberman runs as an independent and splits the Democratic vote, thus handing his former seat to a Republican! Mind you, the state is so heavily democrat that it would be hard to believe, but I guess it’s now a possibility.
Couple of points:
1) I think Bush would have lost in 2004 if Kerry hadn’t been such a wooden douche. That election was about 90% based on personality, regardless of how many polls about “moral values” were misrepresented.
2) I think you’re right that this current crop of democrats in Congress have to go before their party can regain control, but it goes beyond simply their support of the war. This crew is pathologically unable to connect with ordinary Americans. It’s the one strength Bush has. Despite being a 3rd generation rich boy, he and his party have managed to paint the democrats as the real “elitists”. Bush’s folksy act works in middle America and the democrats need to find people who can imitate it.
This whole mess with Joe Lieberman just played right into the R’s hands. This is gonna get played so well by them that the Dems are gonna get their butts handed to them. And I think Joe’s worst-case scenario is dead on.
And I think Joe’s worst-case scenario is dead on.
And what exactly is that?
I would just point out the main reason Democrats like Lieberman and Kerry took a hit is because their base is made up of people who oppose the Iraq war. Bush survived in 2004 for the converse reason.
The real question is, are Republicans finally fed up enough with this war to stay home this year? That’ll decide who controls Congress.
But yes, it may be that the Democrats need to suffer a bit more before they can get their act together.
I think one of the deciding factors in 2004 was the lack of John Edwards ability to carry southern states, including his home state. Not saying its his fault per se, but the Kerry/Edwards campaign was a trainwreck.
Waiting on Hilary….=)
Question for any Connecticut-ite:
Any insight on the Republican Senatorial candidate Alan Schlesinger? Back before the whole Lieberman thing blew up, it didn’t seem as if he were regarded as a really strong candidate for winning the election. If that’s still true, then the Joe Nazarro’s worst case scenario mentioned above (Lieberman as an independent siphons Democratic votes from Lamont, handing Schlesinger the victory) may give way to the certainly-unlikely-but-fun-to-contemplate scenario where Liberman draws votes from both Lamont and Schlesinger…but to what result!
It says something, though, that Bush gets himself reelected despite being the originator of his wildly unpopular policies (or at least the perpetrator of the policies he’s told to institute) but those who wind up supporting those policies get killed in elections.
To be fair, Bush would have done worse than 48% against Lamont in CN, and Lieberman would have done better than 48% in TX.
That Americans are reluctant to switch Commanders in Chief during war
I’m not sure I can agree with that. I really, really wanted to vote against Bush, but there was just no viable option for me. I know a lot of Bush voters would would have dropped Bush for Lieberman
which is that Lieberman runs as an independent and splits the Democratic vote, thus handing his former seat to a Republican
I had the same thought, but after some reading, I would say not to worry. The Repub candidate is just horrible. Most people aren’t expecting him to get more than 20% or so in the final election, thus ensuring either Lamont or Lieberman. A good candidate could pull it off, but I don’t think that’s going to be the case.
This crew is pathologically unable to connect with ordinary Americans.
Lieberman was consistently polled as one of the most likable senators, or did you mean connect as in match up agendas?
I’m very wary of drawing any conclusions just yet. The exact same thing has happened on the right this year too, with the Club for Growth candidates beating 3 moderates. This could well become a horrible failure for both hard wings if their candidates they worked so hard to win primaries run as independents and win.
The real looser either way is bipartisan politics, which is fine by me. The voters have said they care less about people in Washington getting along and playing nice, and more about being going after the base’s agenda.
“And I think Joe’s worst-case scenario is dead on.
And what exactly is that?”
Sorry. Wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean Joe Lieberman. I was talking about Joe Nazzaro’s first post on this thread.
Lieberman was consistently polled as one of the most likable senators, or did you mean connect as in match up agendas?
I was referring to the Democrats in general, not anyone in particular. Sure, there are exceptions. Clinton had enough charisma to overcome his obvious character flaws.
Lieberman’s popularity, particularly among democrat primary voters, though, has been in free fall for years now. The more they saw of his lap dog act on shows like Hannity and Colmes, the less they liked of him. He did very poorly in the 2004 presidential primary and I think the strongly liberal contingent in CT would have voted for Bullwinkle over him this year.
Lieberman was suffering from a severe case of incumbantitis. The symptoms include a disconnect from one’s constituents and a sense of entitlement, manifesting as a general annoyance over having to campaign in order to keep a job you’ve come to believe is yours by divine right.
I really believe that the American voter is hungering for change and for candidates that are worth voting for. The problem for the establishment democrats is that they appear more interested in regaining power in DC than actually using that power for the benefit of the people back home.
I believe there were a few polls prior to the primary that showed Lieberman ahead in a 3-way match. Exactly because he gets Conservative votes too. This is undoubtedly one reason that contributed to his decision to run independently. Of course, much can happen between now and November.
Actually, I have a brand new worse-case scenario, but see what you think about this: the Republican party sends George W. Bush on a whistle-stop tour of the Northeast states, during which he gets photographed with each state’s politicians including the Democratic senators, who of course have to be on hand for the president’s visit. GW then plants a big wet one on their foreheads at the photo op, which of course is used by each senator’s opponents, with lots of snarky captions like ‘Friends 4 Ever.’ The voters, seeing their candidate getting smooched by George, start thinking about guilt by association and vote against him. The Rebublicans pick up an unprecedented number of states in the Northeast and Bush sends a case of chapstick to Tony Blair.
Y,know, maybe I should wait until the first cup of coffee kicks in before posting.
3 possibilities.
1- Lieberman’s defeat is indicative of an overall anti-incumbant attitude that will make 2006 1994 all over again. Bad news for Republicans since they are the party in charge.
2- This is the best possible outcome for Republicans. They can paint the Democrats as having gone whole hog over to the left, to the point where the guy who was deemed worthy of being a heartbeat away from the presidency is now suitable only for purging.
3- A little of both.
Lieberman ran a piss poor campaign up until near the end. Had the campaign gone on a few more days he would have won (especially after the terrorism revelations yesterday). What happens from this point on is up to him. Lamont is a lightweight, almost as much of a non-factor as the Republican. It’s Lieberman vs Lieberman.
If he plays up his independence from both parties he could tap into the anti-incumbant mood. Yeah, the idea of Joe Lieberman, Mr Insider, as the Voice of Independence raises a chuckle but it could well work.
But a lot could happen. If the Republicans are too aggressive in endorsing Lieberman it will backfire. On the other hand, some of Lamont’s supporters on the web have a win at all cost mentality that will turn off voters.
I’m wondering how Democrats will handle this. Already there are demands from the Daily Kos crowd that Lieberman be stripped of any leadership roles in the party. That might actually help him with the voters. It will certainly piss him off. How’s this for a Democrat nightmare scenario–Lieberman wins, the senate is 50/50 and he gets to choose which party rules…after the Democrats have done everything they can to end his political career.
On the other hand, if they don’t back Lamont they risk a huige backlash from the internet crowd.
I’ve thought for some time that the Democrats would win both houses this year. At this point I still think that the House is likely to flip but I’m less sure of the senate. Lieberman’s loss makes it easier for the Republicans to keep it.
Has anyone noticed that Lieberman sounds like Marvin the Martian and looks like Senator Palpatine?
Personally, I’ve always found him to have integrity and principal.
Bill, I’d pick number #3 simply because the more republicans express their love for Lieberman, the more it hurts him in a state where anti-Iraq war sentiment runs very high. On the other hand, Lamont has to prove that he isn’t just a tool of DailyKos and other leftist members of the blogosphere, so the general election could go to either them, assuming Lieberman manages to stay in the race.
I’d also agree that the Dems look posed to take over the House, but the Senate is a tossup. It’s tough to pick up five Senate seats in one election. I expect they’ll have a net gain, even if Lieberman wins and jumps to the GOP side. But I doubt they’ll get 51 seats.
BTW, if the Senate is split 50-50, the GOP will retain control because Cheney will have the tie-breaking vote. So a possible Lieberman win and defection would only be a factor if dems pick up 4 seats.
Would he join the GOP? That’s the huge question. I know Hannity and Coulter have practically begged him to (and playing those tapes in CT will only help Lamont). I think he might, if they promise him a committee chairmanship.
Personally, I’m thrilled — not a surprise to those who know me, I’m sure.
I am dismayed by the fact that this is being painted in the media as “likable centrist overthrown by liberal bloggers on a single-issue dispute.”
First, it’s NOT a single-issue problem and it never was. Am I upset that Lieberman avidly supported both the war and the Patriot Act? Yes, but that (unfortunately) describes a large portion of Democrats in Congress.
Lieberman goes a helluva lot further than that. He’s not only supported the war, he’s actively spoken out against people who criticize Bush and his administration, saying that Bush is the commander-in-chief and thus must be followed. Lieberman helped prevent any sort of filibuster against Samuel Alito, and we can all see just how well he’s turned out. Lieberman backed up Bill Frist (R-DeadCats) in his claim that Terri Schiavo was responsive and thus needed government intervention over the wishes of her husband.
In short, either Lieberman is a rank opportunist who’ll turn on his own party to maintain his image as a “moralist”, or he honestly believes all the tripe he’s peddling. In the latter case, his opinions should put him in the Republican camp; in the former case, he should be out of politics entirely. Either way, I’m overjoyed to see him lose, and not even remotely surprised that the formation of his “Connecticut for Lieberman” party once again sees him putting his own agenda well ahead of the good of the party or the country.
Already there are demands from the Daily Kos crowd that Lieberman be stripped of any leadership roles in the party.
Yep, and it’s really not that hard to understand. By refusing to accept the result of a Democratic primary and choosing to run as an independent, Lieberman has consciously and openly broken with the Democratic party. That’s not generally an action that invites responses of “hey, sure, keep your posts” from the leadership. It sure as hëll wouldn’t from the GOP.
Now, I wouldn’t strip him of the posts at the moment. I would, however, make it very clear to him that IF he runs as an independent and IF he wins as an independent over the Democratic candidate, he will be working from the ground up — no seniority, no leadership positions.
Truth be told, I’m not sure he’s going to go through with this. Almost everyone of substance has said they’re going to support Lamont as the primary winner, including the head of the DSCC and his own senatorial partner in CT. It’s my hope that a couple of polls will show his support way down, and that as such he’ll take a graceful exit. It might get him back a modicum of respect. Not much (at least in my case), but at least it would show more of a grasp on reality than the administration he’s so repeatedly hitched his wagon to.
(Oh, and Patrick — please don’t insult Marvin the Martian like that again. You might make him angry. Very, very angry.)
TWL
Actually, I have an even bigger worse case scenario: Twenty-one Islamic Fascists hijack ten airplanes originating from the UK and blow them up over the Atlantic, killing hundreds of innocent people.
I know, I know, such a silly idea! Who would ever do something like that? And even if they did, could you blame them?
I mean, Bush is SO evil: he hatched a war that thrust an entire region into chaos, committing thousands to death and inciting all kinds of justified retribution … just because he wants POWER. And, he is so tainted with vile evil conservativeness that his mere presence can tank one man’s poltical career!!
Come on! You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this … this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening? That Lieberman’s entire political career is over because he, in sticking to what he believes to be right, sided with President Bush on one issue?
You people are delusionally nuts. Lurking here used to be fun, a kind of unique perspective to shudder at from time to time, but this … this is flat out scary.
I am dismayed by the fact that this is being painted in the media as “likable centrist overthrown by liberal bloggers on a single-issue dispute.”
Well, doing otherwise would require the media to do something other than regurgitate Republican talking points, which is too much of a bother.
I prefer to let the Connecticutians speak for themselves.
–R.J.
You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this … this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening?
Considering the Bush Administration coordinated with the British government to delay raiding the terrorists until after the Vermont primary results were in (Bush was briefed a week ago), I’d seriously question your unblinking loyalty to the Administration.
–R.J.
Robert,
As much as I dislike Shrub, I do not believe that he delayed the arrests until after the Primary. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have the arrests take place on Monday, the day before the election? It might have made the difference in making Shrub’s little buddy at the Democrat’s candidate.
“As much as I dislike Shrub, I do not believe that he delayed the arrests until after the Primary.”
I don’t think he delayed it directly — after all, even Bush can’t push around the British government directly — but I think they did nudge Blair into waiting for a spell. As reported here,
I’m hard-pressed to think of what other reasons the British government could have for delaying the raid for five days, aside from buying time for Bush/Cheney…
–R.J.
Anonymous Internet Jerks
“Come on! You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this … this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening?”
Yeah. And you’re taking the time to talk about our talking about it.
🙂
As much as I dislike Shrub, I do not believe that he delayed the arrests until after the Primary. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have the arrests take place on Monday, the day before the election? It might have made the difference in making Shrub’s little buddy at the Democrat’s candidate.
Not at all. Lieberman serves the Republican party and GOP incumbents much better as someone martyred by Radical Left than as just someone who sucessfully defended his party’s primary.
“You people are delusionally nuts. Lurking here used to be fun, a kind of unique perspective to shudder at from time to time, but this … this is flat out scary.”
No, what’s flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
PAD
You know, after reading the post from “Anonymous Internet Jerks” (does he have MPD?), I’m thinking about how angry the political discourse has gotten in recent years, particularly in the blogosphere. Now, both sides have been guilty, but it seems like the right has been getting even more shrill than usual. I think they realize they have more to lose right now and, for the first time in years, we’re seeing real fear in their dialogue. And as someone once said, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate is the path to the dark side.
AIJ, you’re really sound like you’re about to plunge head first into the dark side.
I don’t think he delayed it directly — after all, even Bush can’t push around the British government directly — but I think they did nudge Blair into waiting for a spell.
I have to wonder if these raids are worth anything more than a brief blip for the GOP incumbants. After all, they’re also reminding us that the British foiled an attempt to blow up airplanes, while our government has captured: seven dipshits living in a warehouse with no weapons or plans and handful of guys who posted on an internet message board about their plan to flood a city that’s above sea level.
Who’s really making headway against terror plots?
“As much as I dislike Shrub, I do not believe that he delayed the arrests until after the Primary.”
I don’t think he delayed it directly — after all, even Bush can’t push around the British government directly — but I think they did nudge Blair into waiting for a spell. As reported here
Er, I think that’s called politics and it’s been going on since George Washington left the White House. Hardly worthy of demonizing, and hardly worthy of ignoring the larger fact of the matter: a threat still exists – ideological groups in the name of an otherwise peaceful religion want to kill as many of us as possible.
No, what’s flat out scary is that you waste time hanging out with people whom you believe to be delusional nuts. But hey, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
PAD
Um, I won’t, but thanks! Although, is taking a few minutes of time to experience/read other perspectives really that scary to you, PAD? Just because I think you’re largely delusional, doesn’t mean I may not be able to learn from you.
Now, both sides have been guilty, but it seems like the right has been getting even more shrill than usual. I think they realize they have more to lose right now and, for the first time in years, we’re seeing real fear in their dialogue. And as someone once said, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate is the path to the dark side.
Den, you’re right, divisive behavior has increased over the past five years (although, I would blame the nut-bags on the radio more than message boards), but I assure you, my path is quite clear and quite light.
Folks, I haven’t seen anything to back up this conspiracy theory other than Keith Olbermann of MSNBC asserting that it couldn’t be coincidence that this happened just after the primary vote. The idea that “such-and-such just can’t be a coincidence” isn’t proof of anything. It’s circular logic.
Just because W. was briefed a week ago means nothing. To make an arrest, you need suspects, and they may not have had them at that point. They may not have known the exact nature of the plot. And sounding the alarm too early might have given the terrorists the chance to go underground.
As for those who believe that failing to catch all of the suspects is further evidence of a conspiracy: criminals often go to great lengths to avoid being caught. Some of them can be quite good at eluding law enforcement.
I am no fan of W.’s. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. But making such wild accusations against him does nothing but obscure the truly crappy stuff that he’s actually done. Why is everyone so intent on doing that?
Posted by: Anonymous Internet Jerks at August 11, 2006 04:35 PM
Den, you’re right, divisive behavior has increased over the past five years (although, I would blame the nut-bags on the radio more than message boards), but I assure you, my path is quite clear and quite light.
Actions speak louder — and mean more, in many cases — than words. Since we’re using “The Dark Side” as a metaphor in this instance for engaging in divisive and unproductive rhetorical tactics, you are in fact treading “The Dark Side.” You can declare you’re not until you’re blue in the face, but it’s like asserting that a circle is a square; you can repeat the falsehood to your heart’s content, but the circle will remain a square and reality will remain unbudged.
I am no fan of W.’s. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. But making such wild accusations against him does nothing but obscure the truly crappy stuff that he’s actually done. Why is everyone so intent on doing that?
I don’t think anyone here really believes that Bush twisted Tony’s arm and potentially endangered the War on Terror ™ just for the sake of scoring a few political points.
The thing is, no one here would be the least bit shocked or surprised if it turned out that he did.
“I’m hard-pressed to think of what other reasons the British government could have for delaying the raid for five days, aside from buying time for Bush/Cheney…
–R.J.”
I can. From what I’ve gathered, the Brits had these guys thoroughly penetrated and could have gathered them up at will. They only waited as long as they did to allow them to identify the maximum number of people in the the network, allowing them to pick up as many of them as possible. When they started to get close to doing some actual harm, the Brits fell on them like the Sword of Damocles.
Considering the Bush Administration coordinated with the British government to delay raiding the terrorists until after the Vermont primary results were in (Bush was briefed a week ago), I’d seriously question your unblinking loyalty to the Administration.
You know, comments like this are why Democrats lose elections. You really have one of two choices. Either Bush is much more intelligent than some of you think, or Bush really would put people at risk when there is really no clear payoff for his administration. I mean, give me a break, if this had come out before the election, there would be cries that he manipulated things.
There is a much more obvious reason the arrests were delayed: A desire to catch as many involved as possible so that there would be no future attacks from this group.
I fully realize not all of you who disagree with Bush agree with this comment. But it does seem to reflect the attitude many Democrats have of Bush, that he is so interested in himself he would put others at risk. I won’t try to change your mind, but simply say that I am convinced the majority do not believe this is true. You may think he is incompetent or had wrong ideas for starting the way, but that is worlds apart from saying he deliberately did things for personal gain.
Iowa Jim
Posted by: Sasha at August 11, 2006 05:06 PM
I don’t think anyone here really believes that Bush twisted Tony’s arm and potentially endangered the War on Terror ™ just for the sake of scoring a few political points.
Actually, there are few people posting here (not everyone, not the majority, but a few) who obviously do believe it. So I thought it might be worthwhile to address the issue.
You may think he is incompetent or had wrong ideas for starting the way, but that is worlds apart from saying he deliberately did things for personal gain.
Jim,
Would you acknowledge that it’s possible for people to believe (a) in some situations and (b) in others? I do not, for example, buy into the conspiracy idea that he was behind 9/11 or had sufficiently specific notice that he could decide to “let it happen” — that one falls under incompetence to me. I do, however, think that there are any number of things that were done for personal or political gain, and assuming the current junta doesn’t rewrite all the history books I’m hopeful that much of the administration’s criminality will eventually be demonstrated to a sufficient degree to convince most everyone.
In any case, I hope you’re willing to allow for a viewpoint that is not quite so binary as the one you initially described.
(And while I credit Bush personally with very little intelligence, many of those in his administration are clearly intelligent. Twisted and evil, more machine now than man … but intelligent.)
TWL
“But it does seem to reflect the attitude many Democrats have of Bush, that he is so interested in himself he would put others at risk.”
Well, the invasion of Iraq was motivated by self-interest, and he put–what, 140,000 troops? More?–at risk, so…
PAD
Commenting on something Dr. ObviousSo said up above about Lieberman being one of the most likable senators, if I’m reading likable right, just because I like someone doesn’t mean I think they’re going to do a good job. Poll after poll before Bush got reelected said most people would rather have a beer with Bush than Kerry, but as much fun as THAT might be, who would do the better job? I would still have to say Kerry, but let’s not go there.
Ever notice how people are always delusional nuts and you never hear about delusional bolts?
I think Den is right, political discussions have gotten nasty lately, PARTICULARLY in the blogsphere–mostly because the people don’t have to look each other in the eye to be ignorant prìçkš. “oh, it’s just online, these people don’t really exsist, what do I care?” People DO exsist, and it’s MUCH easier while blogging to look like a classic Doofus Elextronicus since reading the typed word lacks the inflection behind the spoken word.
Timm, just to jump in here, what would his Sith name be? Darth Sillius? Best I could come up wit on short notie. Betcha I think of a killer one at 3 in the morning.
Part of the problem with Lieberman going independent, is that some people can’t see past their pointy noses to see what might be the greater good. I know people that have voted Republican just because they’re making more money now than when Clinton was in office. Never did they consider that when Clinton was in, they were working in a pizza joint and got out of College just before Bush went in and they could owe their larger paychecks more to chronoligical time and the fact that they got a decent job out of college than who was in DC. But then, we do get the governemnt we deserve, don’t we?
Is it just me, or did that last line sound like something Brian Blessed would’ve said in the first episode of the Black Adder?
But it does seem to reflect the attitude many Democrats have of Bush, that he is so interested in himself he would put others at risk.
Not so much interested in himself, but interested in listening only to himself (which I think is a distinct difference). The poor contingency planning across the board (poor even for big government) seems to me the mark of a poor planner, with a weak grasp of details and an unwillingness to sweat the small stuff that makes the big stuff happen. THAT would put others at risk.
You know, I’m the most cynical conspiracy theorist there is as far as this administration is concerned, but even I don’t believe that the British government would have waited a couple of days to pick these dudes up. God forbid something HAD actually happened and it came out that Blair had caved in to Bush, he would have been run out of 10 Downing Street on a rail.
From what I’ve read so far, which some previous posters have already alluded to here, MI5 did indeed know about this plot for quite some time, so much so that they had already installed trackers on all of the suspect’s cars so they knew where they were going every instant of every day. The reason they waited was A) build up evidence and create as airtight a case as possible, and B) try to cast as wide a net as possible so that when the hammer finally came down, they could arrest everybody they could. And as soon as they realized the terrorists were about to try a dry run, they swooped in and picked them up.
Incidentally, I’m not quite sure where Lurch, I mean Chertoff and company are so busy patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Thus far, everything I’ve read indicates that this was a joint British/Pakistani operation, and our governent had no involvement other than being informed about what was happening. If anybody knows more than that, I’m perfectly happy to be corrected, but it sounds to me that after this plot and tracking down the 7/7 bombers, the British anti-terrorism forces are doing what our government wishes they’d been able to do. Take a bow, Chertoff; you don’t deserve it, but after Katrina, even undeserved, reflected glory is better than none at all.
I am someone who has political leanings toward the right, libertarian more than republican.
We ARE at war though. The war started well before George Bush became President. We displayed our vulnerability by failing to meaningfully respond when the Kobar towers were destroyed, when the US Cole was attacked. Bombing an aspirin factory and a few tents made us look weak and innefectual.
No wonder Al-Quaida thought that they would have no problem when they took down the World Trade Center on September 11th.
How soon we forget the threat.
It is not a “politically correct” war against terrorism though, it is a religious war. The Islam-fasciasts (yes, they are Nazis) have started a war against the West. Against the United States, Great Britian, Israel. Because we are largely Christrian or Jewish? India is not safe from islamic fasciasts based in Pakistan. Austrialians vacationing in Indonesia are not safe from islamic fasciasts.
The enemy will not be satisfied until their version of religion is the only version. Until we all become servants of Allah. Until the celephate is re-established. Worldwide.
I urge you to wake up. The democrats are perecieved as weak on defense. In collusion with the Legacy Media and the ACLU the democrats appear to be trying to do everything they can to put obstructions in the way of the fight against the terrorists.
Wiretapping was used to uncover the threat. Following financial transactions was used to uncover the threat. Yes the British and Pakistanis, and now Italy, were heavily involved in eliminating (or reducing) this threat. This time. But, without the tools that our intelligence community needs to have, when the teeth in the Patriot Act have been removed, we will not be able to thwart the next attack. And… they WILL try again.
Yes, Joseph Lieberman lost a primary election this week. However, only a fraction of the registered voters partipated, and of them, he did gather 48% of that vote. Hardly a mandate for Lamont. What the Lamont victory does say is the the democrat party has no room for any dissent. What’s next, would a pro-life democrat be hounded out of office (maybe they alreay have been)
And, yes, it may be as bad on the Republican side as well, when a respeced moderate representative like Joe Schwartz in Michigan is defeted by a hard-right conservative candidate. That’s not good either. Both parties are polarizing.
Meanwhile…
Well, the invasion of Iraq was motivated by self-interest, and he put–what, 140,000 troops? More?–at risk, so…
Where did that come from. Saddam Hussien was a major supporter of Hamas. Hussien was providing thousands of dollars to the families of every suicide bomber who killed innocents in Israel. This is the Saddam who did have weapons of mass distruction who did use them against his own people. This is the Saddam who failed to honor his agreements when the truce was signed in allowing inspectors access.
I’m not quite sure where Lurch, I mean Chertoff…. Gee I thought Lurch ran for President on the D ticket last time. Rather, Chertoff seems more like Director Bones.
For some reason the mental image of all of the old congress “dying off” put a smile on my face. Yeah, I’m a disturbed man, but dámņ it those bášŧárdš need term limits. F*$%ing career politicians…
Hmmm. GaryB, please just don’t quote the GOP party line. We have all read it before.
If Bush was truly an effective President, why is Bin Laden still alive?
Come on! You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this … this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening? That Lieberman’s entire political career is over because he, in sticking to what he believes to be right, sided with President Bush on one issue?
Blah, blah blah. It’s PAD’s blog. On any given day there are more important things to talk about than comics so does that mean we never get to talk about comics? Presumably he had something he wanted to say about the Lieberman thing. As opposed to the thwarted terrorism attempt, where the only rational response is basically “Golly, glad that got thwarted.”
“I’m hard-pressed to think of what other reasons the British government could have for delaying the raid for five days, aside from buying time for Bush/Cheney…”
Huh? Where is the evidence that there was any delay at all? You don’t always raid when you first find out about something, you do it when you can get the best results. At any rate, I still don’t see why they would deliberately cost Lieberman the election…are you suggesting that Lamont is a Karl Rove tool?
I don’t think anyone here really believes that Bush twisted Tony’s arm and potentially endangered the War on Terror ™ just for the sake of scoring a few political points.
I think you’re incorrect, it seems to me that at least one person has pretty much said just that.
The whole “this happened now to distract us from (fill in the blank)” has gotten tiresome. It’s beyond paranoia, entering some kind of almost religious belief in the idea that Things Don’t Just Happen. there has to be a Greater Power behind evreything. I’ve always thought that a lot of what was behind the Kennedy Assasination theories was the fact that it is far more comforting to believe that a man like Kennedy was brought down by a cabal than by some lone nut. Some folks would much rather believe that the Twin Towers were destroyed by their own government than admit that it was planned by a man who looks like he ought to be molesting sheep.
Back to the Lieberman story–The first post-primary Rasmussen poll shows Lieberman leading Lamont, 46-41, (the Republican gets 6)
Thus far, everything I’ve read indicates that this was a joint British/Pakistani operation, and our governent had no involvement other than being informed about what was happening. If anybody knows more than that, I’m perfectly happy to be corrected
For what it’s worth, from TIME; “MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group’s communications.”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
I think that might be the best idea of them all.
Not just the Democrats, but the Republicans too.
Vote as many out as possible and get some new blood in office. See if that will help (even if only just a little) to overcome the stagnation of stupidity.
Bill Mulligan: “As opposed to the thwarted terrorism attempt, where the only rational response is basically ‘Golly, glad that got thwarted.'”
Cynics like me are reluctant to give credit where credit is due. But if you’re going to criticize the government for its mistakes, then, conversely, you should acknowledge when they get things right.
And this operation had all the earmarks of Getting Things Right. The Pakistani, British, and U.S. governments worked together, sharing intelligence and acting on it swiftly and appropriately. Good, capable, and heroic people averted a tragedy.
I believe W. is an awful, incompetent and sleazy president. But that shouldn’t stop me — or anyone else — from being grateful for the work that intelligence and law enforcement officials from three countries did to keep the world safer. They averted an attack that could have rivaled — or surpassed — the carnage of 9/11. I, for one, am grateful, and refuse to look for an excuse in to prove myself “more cynical than thou” about this.
Patrick: “Has anyone noticed that Lieberman sounds like Marvin the Martian and looks like Senator Palpatine?”
Not until you mentioned it, no. But now that you have, I’m not going to be able to take the poor man seriously anymore. Because, yeah, you’re dead on.
Anonymous Internet Jerk: Come on! You guys fancy yourself to be involved and interested in world politicking and this … this is what you talk about the day after British and American Intelligence stop another widescale terrorist attack from happening?
Luigi Novi: In the first place, discussion here generally follows whatever the topic of Peter’s blog entry is, and since he made an entry on that subject, that’s what we’re talking about. Where is it written that he (or we) have to talk about what you think we should? Blog entries, columns and articles generally follow observations or insight that the author gleans from a particular news item. Perhaps Peter didn’t have any particular take on the foiled terrorist plots that merited a blog entry. Who are you to dictate to him or us what we’re supposed to talk about?
Second, you’re here yourself talking about it. Why is this? Are you surfing the entire Net trying to steer every single conversation about Lieberman to the terror plots, or just this one? If you want to talk about that topic, why not find a website where you can do so? Why act as if a private site belonging to someone else has to cater to your tastes?
Anonymous Internet Jerk: Um, I won’t, but thanks! Although, is taking a few minutes of time to experience/read other perspectives really that scary to you, PAD?
Luigi Novi: You didn’t offer a “perspective”. You criticized everyone here merely for the topic they chose to talk about—which is what Peter was clearly responding to, and rightfully so, since you’ve chosen to engage us in that topic yourself.
My dilike/disrespect for Lieberman stems almost entirely from his heavy involvement with censorship in particular and the “Parents’ Television Council” specifically. When Gore chose him as his running mate, I picked *that* as the Kiss of Death of *that* campaign. I voted for them anyway, ‘cos I knew what the stakes were.
If only he were as willing to keep fighting back then as he seems to be now…
Wildcat
Yes, Joseph Lieberman lost a primary election this week. However, only a fraction of the registered voters partipated
The Connecticut primary had a turnout of 43%, last time I checked. That’s roughly double the turnout of most non-presidential primaries in the state.
As such, while your statement is of course technically correct, it’s laughable in practice.
The first post-primary Rasmussen poll shows Lieberman leading Lamont, 46-41, (the Republican gets 6)
Thanks, Bill. Considering that the pre-primary polls showed JoeyBaby leading by something like a 30% margin, I’d read this as evidence that he’s not likely to make it all the way to November. Too bad, so sad.
TWL
You know yesterday I spoke to my uncle in London, and asked him what the feeling was over there.
his response. the general feeling is I hope we got the right ones this time.
Apparently there’s been a few mistaken arrests and one shot.