Old Democrats, Hillary, Short-Circuit Lamont Iraq Message
This is going to be short because I have to make the rent, and no one is paying me to write these damned posts.
Ned Lamont and the New Democrats are saying what has to be said. Hillary and the Old Democrats doing everything to undermine it. Hillary, not only unlikely to win any match-up with Jeb Bush in 2008, but about the only Democrat guaranteed to lose it, never dares utter the truth that Lamont and the New Dems are trying to make heard: Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror; it in fact hurts the war on terror. Afghanistan is the central front, and the Paki border, and places like Londonistan. It's global.
If Clinton and the national party just shut up and said nothing it would be better. Lamont surely knew he was on his own from the start. What he may not have expected was the back-stabbing. Hillary, when asked to comment on attacks on Lamont as the "Al Qaeda" candidate, said "I just think we have to be united as a country." Ick. She wants to be president?
Today George Bush said pulling out of Iraq "would be a defeat for the United States in a key battleground in the global war on terror." Instead of taking the shot Bush opened himself up for, Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, responds with Kerry's old boilerplate "the White House's Iraq policy has been a tragic failure."
Sure, it has failed, we ALL know THAT, but the commander-in-chief just says hang in there. We'll eventually win. So why don't you Bush-haters just go away?
This stuff only makes the New York Times, but the rest of the nation's media takes its cues from it, and it shapes the coverage.
Cheney now says the election of Ned Lamont would "embolden Al Qaeda types." I'm tired of saying it over and over again. This is starting to feel like August 2004, when Kerry absolutely, definitely would not GO THERE. Then lost. Embolden Al Qaeda types?
Betraying (not "outing", this is not about gender) Intelligence Officer Valerie Plame and her covert networks tracking WMD emboldened Al Qaeda types, as did losing 300 tons of HMX explosives in Iraq (remember that one?) As did fighting against the establishment of a 9/11 Commission, as does fighting its recommendations now. The Bushies link every attack and foiled plot to us having too many civil liberties. They do everything to keep us safe except the work. (SEE THE LOPEZ 12 STEPS FOR WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR.)
It's all on this website. Steal this research!
Ned Lamont can't say all these things himself. He needs a party behind him to respond to attacks while he drives home the positive agenda.
Think of what happens when any Democrat dares criticize the commander-in-chief on an important point, like whether or not Bush let bin Laden go at Tora Bora. Republicans pounce like a pack of wild dogs.
It's not that Old Democrats can't do any better. It's against their interests for Lamont to win. If Lamont shows that a powerful Democrat like Lieberman can be knocked off for his complicity in the Bush regime, any one of them could be next.
It's not the media's fault. Sure, they're perpetuating the voters-trust-Republicans-more-on-national-security line, but that's because the national Democratics are saying nothing to replace it. When you give me nothing to write by deadline, I'll have to write whatever. Meanwhile, ten thousand miles from where politicians plot the impact of each word on their political careers down to the nanometer, another 21-year-old watches his life end, scared and alone.
Ned Lamont and the New Democrats are saying what has to be said. Hillary and the Old Democrats doing everything to undermine it. Hillary, not only unlikely to win any match-up with Jeb Bush in 2008, but about the only Democrat guaranteed to lose it, never dares utter the truth that Lamont and the New Dems are trying to make heard: Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror; it in fact hurts the war on terror. Afghanistan is the central front, and the Paki border, and places like Londonistan. It's global.
If Clinton and the national party just shut up and said nothing it would be better. Lamont surely knew he was on his own from the start. What he may not have expected was the back-stabbing. Hillary, when asked to comment on attacks on Lamont as the "Al Qaeda" candidate, said "I just think we have to be united as a country." Ick. She wants to be president?
Today George Bush said pulling out of Iraq "would be a defeat for the United States in a key battleground in the global war on terror." Instead of taking the shot Bush opened himself up for, Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, responds with Kerry's old boilerplate "the White House's Iraq policy has been a tragic failure."
Sure, it has failed, we ALL know THAT, but the commander-in-chief just says hang in there. We'll eventually win. So why don't you Bush-haters just go away?
This stuff only makes the New York Times, but the rest of the nation's media takes its cues from it, and it shapes the coverage.
Cheney now says the election of Ned Lamont would "embolden Al Qaeda types." I'm tired of saying it over and over again. This is starting to feel like August 2004, when Kerry absolutely, definitely would not GO THERE. Then lost. Embolden Al Qaeda types?
Betraying (not "outing", this is not about gender) Intelligence Officer Valerie Plame and her covert networks tracking WMD emboldened Al Qaeda types, as did losing 300 tons of HMX explosives in Iraq (remember that one?) As did fighting against the establishment of a 9/11 Commission, as does fighting its recommendations now. The Bushies link every attack and foiled plot to us having too many civil liberties. They do everything to keep us safe except the work. (SEE THE LOPEZ 12 STEPS FOR WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR.)
It's all on this website. Steal this research!
Ned Lamont can't say all these things himself. He needs a party behind him to respond to attacks while he drives home the positive agenda.
Think of what happens when any Democrat dares criticize the commander-in-chief on an important point, like whether or not Bush let bin Laden go at Tora Bora. Republicans pounce like a pack of wild dogs.
It's not that Old Democrats can't do any better. It's against their interests for Lamont to win. If Lamont shows that a powerful Democrat like Lieberman can be knocked off for his complicity in the Bush regime, any one of them could be next.
It's not the media's fault. Sure, they're perpetuating the voters-trust-Republicans-more-on-national-security line, but that's because the national Democratics are saying nothing to replace it. When you give me nothing to write by deadline, I'll have to write whatever. Meanwhile, ten thousand miles from where politicians plot the impact of each word on their political careers down to the nanometer, another 21-year-old watches his life end, scared and alone.
posted by Jobs for Afghans at 6:49 PM
0 comments
