Ned Lamont - "Why Do I Have To Say Anything?"

The NY Times chats with the Empty Suit after United States Senator Joe Lieberman reacts to the terror plot in London:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman seized on the terror arrests in Britain today to attack his Democratic rival, Ned Lamont, saying that Mr. Lamont’s goals for ending the war in Iraq would constitute a “victory” for extremists, including those accused of plotting to blow up airliners traveling between Britain and the United States.

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event at lunchtime in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

Mr. Lamont, who rode an antiwar message to beat Mr. Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary on Tuesday, has called for a firm deadline to remove front-line American troops from Iraq, and he endorsed a Democratic-sponsored amendment in the Senate to set that deadline for next July. Mr. Lieberman opposed setting a deadline.

In a telephone interview from his vacation home in Maine, Mr. Lamont said he was disappointed with the personal tone Mr. Lieberman’s remarks, and questioned the connection between the Iraq war and the new terrorist plot. He also continued his strategy of trying to link Mr. Lieberman’s views with those of the Bush administration, whose approach the senator has tended to support in the fight against terrorism.

“Wow,” Mr. Lamont said, after asking a reporter to read Mr. Lieberman’s remark about him. “That comment sounds an awful lot like Vice President Cheney’s comment on Wednesday. Both of them believe our invasion of Iraq has a lot to do with 9/11. That’s a false premise.”

...

Mr. Lamont hesitated when he was asked if Mr. Lieberman’s criticisms were beyond the bounds of acceptable political combat.

“To try to score political points on every international issues...” Mr. Lamont said, before pausing and stopping himself. Then he added, “Why do I have to say anything?”

Gee - did "Rape Gurney Joe" go beyond the bounds of acceptable political combat?  Mr. Lamont would be shocked to hear what is said about Senator Lieberman (if he knew anything about the blogs).

As to Mr. Lamont's recycling of the anti-war talking point that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda when we invaded in 2003 - it's time to move on, sir.  Regardless of the situation then, I don't think serious observers doubt that as of 2006, Al Qaeda would be emboldened by an American collapse in Iraq - certainly Osama bin Ladin, based on his own rhetoric, was emboldened by apparent American weakness in Lebanon and Somalia.

The Dems have nominated an Empty Suit in a time of war. 

Comments

[Marcel]

Bin Laden and his #2 are still out there instigating terror attacks, and there is no serious effort to locate them. But somehow the continuing attacks, whether successful or not, are the fault of Democrats.

Anyone who points out the extremely serious flaws in our national security administration is labelled a traitor, a terrorist enabler who emboldens our enemies.

[Mescalero]

Aren't we really hearing the words of that classic Stalinist apologist Corliss Lamont whenever Ned speaks? Lamont needs to take a look over his family's bloody Stalinist-colloborationist past and figure out if he has anything new to say to the American people. At this point in time, his message is empty of meaningful content!!

[boris]

labelled a traitor

Pathetic whiney drivel.

Point out WTF you want, advocating cutting and running helps the enemy.

[SteveMG]

Bin Laden and his #2 are still out there instigating terror attacks, and there is no serious effort to locate them

Sorry, that's so over the top that one doesn't know where to start shoveling.

No serious effort to locate them?

More important, you don't seriously believe that the removal of Bin Laden and Zawahiri will completely stop (or even seriously mitigate) Islamic terrorism?

SMG

[vnjagvet]

Marcel, my man. You seem to ignore that these birds were caught. Some diversion.

[Jimmy's Attack Rabbit]

An empty suit is a perfect vessel for a party devoid of serious ideas.

[Don]

Except the American collapse in Iraq is happening right now. Have you even been paying attention?

If the goal was to remove Saddam Hussein-we already accomplished that mission.

Taking it at name value-Operation Iraqi freedom-this war is lost.

No more elections are even scheduled for 3 years. The elected government is not in control of the country. And there are no more corners to turn.

[topsecretk9]

Via Lamont's http://nedlamont.com/news/194/lamont-captures-third-of-democratic-delegates-stamford-advocate”>BLOG, that he may or maynot know about...

Lamont has been an outspoken critic of Lieberman for his support of the war in Iraq and his voting record on issues such as judicial appointments and intelligence-gathering techniques.

He has said he hopes to gain the support of disillusioned Democrats who oppose the war, as well as the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and the controversisal renewal of the Patriot Act.

[Rick Ballard]

Do Tom and Daisy vacation in Maine every summer?

[boris]

this war is lost

False choice. Win vs Lose.

More of a work in progress. You can cut and run if you want. The rest of us will will pursue our agenda without your help. Try and stop us if you dare, just remember they'll still want to kill you and we won't be particularly fond of you either.

[Slartibartfast]

As luke...ok, as cold as I am for Mr. Lamont, I think that the "emboldening the enemy" argument against anything at all one doesn't like makes one look like an idiot.

I think Ned Lamont played this one just right, and the idea that all an empty suit like Lamont has to do to get my grudging admiration is to not dignify this sort of crap with a response...that just frosts me. Quit making it easy.

And, you know, I think I'm voting to throw the bums out this year, regardless of what Al Qaeda might be thinking. Because I'm really frickin' tired of this sort of appeal to fear. I mean, what next bit of rhetoric is going to embolden Al Qaeda?

[SteveMG]

Because I'm really frickin' tired of this sort of appeal to fear.

Well, okay. But when Democrats say that Bush has made us less safe (Kennedy today) by alienating ourselves from our allies and angering the Islamic world with his policies, is that fear mongering?

And when Democrats (I'm generalizing of course) say that Bush has destroyed the Constitution and taken away our basic liberties, is that fear mongering?

I'm trying to get a measure here of what is and what isn't acceptable fear mongering.

SMG

[Other Tom]

"Anyone who points out the extremely serious flaws in our national security administration is labelled a traitor, a terrorist enabler who emboldens our enemies."

No, no, Marcel--you evidently misunderstand. We reserve the label "traitor" for the ones who unlawfully leak information about the strengths, not the weaknesses, of our security programs. You're just a little confused...

[boris]

frickin' tired of this sort of appeal to fear

It's not meant to scare brave folks like yourself (you big lug), it's just an observation. It does help them, no question.

There's a famous argument on evolution that supposes there once was a tribe that had no fear of tigers. Guess why it's phrased "there once was"?

[jerry]

"the anti-war talking point that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda when we invaded in 2003" etc...

Come on TM, even the French understood that invading Iraq would motivate Al Qaeda and produce more terrorists. There was no good reason to invade Iraq, beyond the false argument that W wanted to defend his father from Saddam's assasination attempt... that's a brand new motivation for W, I'd say, considering his larger motivations... destroying the CIA for example.

"regardless of the situation then" by this you mean - despite there being no valid reason to invade Iraq vis 911?

At some point Republicans will have to admit that many Americans and Iraqis have died, and were wounded, for no good reason; that their leaders were wrong in deliberately manipulating the US public.

[Don]

Ok-here's Maj Gen Cladwell quoted in today's WAPO on our new plan to secure the capital city three years into this war:

"The key thing about this operation is that . . . it counts on the Iraqi citizens," said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell. "They have to be involved. The Iraqi people have to want this to work. If they are not involved, if they're not willing to commit, if they're not willing to be a part of the solution, then there is no solution."

Problem A: There is no such thing as the "Iraqi people."

Accordingly, there is no solution.

The Brits just showed that combatting terrorism is fundamentally a police operation. It's time to move on (dot org).

[boris]

even the French

jerry ... jerry lewis ... IS THAT YOU !!!

[SteveMG]

There was no good reason to invade Iraq,

What was all that stuff that the Clinton Administration was telling us about Iraq in the 1990s? Why were they telling us that Saddam needed to be removed?

This nonsense that the need to overthrow Saddam was somehow made up of whole cloth by the neocons or by Bush is just complete malarkey.

SMG

[boris]

Problem A: There is no such thing as the "Iraqi people."

Brother's been there twice with the Army Corps of Engineers working with the military and Iraqis. He saw lots of Iraqi people.

You're a joke right?

[A]

Joe must be persiant-in fact he might be in on the whole conspiracy with Rove because gasp! I know I heard him talk about N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L S-E-C-U-R-I-T-Y on election night.

Lamont-I think he said something about "free booze!" Gee-you don't think he bought the election!?

[Barney Frank]

"....destroying the CIA for example."

How would we tell the difference?

"Come on TM, even the French understood that invading Iraq would motivate Al Qaeda and produce more terrorists."

Let's see, Saddam was a secularist and had no connecton to AQ but deposing him somehow motivated them.
Surely 9/11 was a sufficient demonstration of their motivation wasn't it?

And could someone making the charge that Iraq has created more terrorists please provide the citation for this 'fact' bearing in mind that any number cited will have to exceed the number of terrorists killed in Iraq for any net gain to have occurred.

[Don]

No-your brother saw people belonging to various tribes centered into three major groupings of Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds who live in an area known as Iraq, formed out of of three former regions of the Ottoman empire by the British in 1932.

My dad is older than the "country" of Iraq and it appears he's going to outlive it. Allah willing.

[dorf]

Joe will win in a laugher. Ned's 1/2 life is up and already smelling.

[Slartibartfast]

is that fear mongering

No, that's stupidity. But it was Kennedy, so I'm being redundant.

[A]

Darn it! I knew was going to get that wrong....

prescient.
{I'm still hung over from getting drunk with Al, Jesse and Lamont!}

[Slartibartfast]

Guess why it's phrased "there once was"?

Um...because they were a bunch of idiot? Other than that, I don't see your point. What I'm pointing to, probably badly, is this constant relabeling of "that which I don't want to have happen" as "that which might encourage Al Qaeda". Seriously, I'm almost afraid to take a dump anymore.

[topsecretk9]

OK, this is from the Times London

One aim [of Islamic terrorists] to create an army of “white-skinned” militants, men born in Europe and America who can convert to Islam and become harder for the authorities to detect as they cross the world on their missions, including suicide attacks…

Experts were struck by how the network was radicalising non-Arabs to alter the profile of its operatives. This included using women recruits, such as the 38-year-old Belgian waitress, born to a white, middle-class Christian family, who died in a suicide attack against US troops in Baghdad last November.

The left breaks there back constantly discounting the idea that Saddam and Al Queada would/could or did collude in common interest to hurt the West, yet time and time again we find that Al Queada and terrorists will stop at nothing in order to carry out attacks including encouraging and accepting white converts!

[sam]

08/10/06 KUNA: Six killed, three injured in resturant explosion western Baghdad

08/10/06 AP: GI Who Exposed Abu Ghraib Feared Revenge

08/10/06 KUNA: Three Iraq policemen killed in clashes with insurgents

08/10/06 Reuters: Dozens killed in Najaf blast

08/10/06 AFP: Sunni insurgent group claims Najaf bombing

08/10/06 Kuna: Bomb attack kills two policemen in Kirkuk

08/10/06 KUNA: Bodies of two US pilots retrieved

08/10/06 Reuters: Brother of Sunni legislator killed in Muqdadiya

08/10/06 AFP: US spokesman says 2 crewman found dead

08/10/06 Reuters: Policemen killed in Falluja amd Hawija

08/10/06 AP: Four killed in explosion in Baquba

08/10/06 AFP: Suicide bomber kills 33 near Iraqi Shiite shrine

[Soylent Red]

Seriously, I'm almost afraid to take a dump anymore.

That was my first guess, because you're full of it.

Jesus help us. The moonbats are howling tonight.

BEWARE THE BLOGS!

[MissScarlett]

Well, empty suit Lamont would have plenty of company. Half the suits in Congress are so empty it's a wonder they remain upright and mobile.

[paladin2]

sam-
What's your point? Alot of bad stuff happens in wars. The Demo's should have realized that when they voted for this war. The next time we have a vote to authorize a conflict , there should be an understanding that if you vote Yes you will be prohibted from lated undermining the war effort and the troups. The only significant dateline you mention is the fact the a sucide bomber was killed near a Shite shrine. As the supply of these are-I assume- limited, this means there is now one less available to kill americans.

[paladin2]

sam-
What's your point? Alot of bad stuff happens in wars. The Demo's should have realized that when they voted for this war. The next time we have a vote to authorize a conflict , there should be an understanding that if you vote Yes you will be prohibted from lated undermining the war effort and the troups. The only significant dateline you mention is the fact the a sucide bomber was killed near a Shite shrine. As the supply of these are-I assume- limited, this means there is now one less available to kill americans.

[dorf]

Anybody remember Marc Greene? He was kicking butt in Aug 01.

[Cecil Turner]

What I'm pointing to, probably badly, is this constant relabeling of "that which I don't want to have happen" as "that which might encourage Al Qaeda".

As long as we're not losing sight of the things that actually, you know, encourage al Qaeda. (Like running away from Somalia, f'r instance.) And I think a precipitous retreat from Iraq would certainly qualify.

On a related note, a German TV station has the definitive green-helmet video which pretty much removes all doubt about his blatant media manipulation. As to why our media continues to allow itself to be so transparently manipulated, well, that's not quite so obvious.

[Good Lt]

Looked at the murder rate in Phildelphia or DC lately, sam?

Almost one per day.

Damn Bush. Damn Iraq. Damn quagmire of Democrat supporters.

[Jane]

Guliiani was on the tube last night and talked about the difference between being on the offense on terrorisim (Bush) v being on the defense on terrorism (the left).

That is really what it boils down to. Either we stand up to the jihadists or we wait for them to attack.

Guiliani firmly believes that our offensive stand, particularly in Iraq is the main reason we have not been attacked since 911.

[Slartibartfast]

Jesus help us. The moonbats are howling tonight.

It's always amusing when folks show up and demonstrate their dearth of clue.

As long as we're not losing sight of the things that actually, you know, encourage al Qaeda.

I'd put it differently: I'd say that all this business about whether Senator X or Congressman Y gets voted in or out of office is an encouragement to Al Qaeda is, on its own scale very possibly encouraging to Al Qaeda. Look at how they squabble amongst themselves! Look how easily cowed they are!

No, I don't think that, really. But it's equally silly. No, we ought to be paying attention to, as you said, Cecil, those things that actually are enabling to the enemy.

SoylentRed, Google is your friend. You might as well be applying that moonbat label to Cecil, for instance.

[Bob]

I am thrilled that Ned the Lame has won.

Now we'll have 3 months of conspiracies, stolen elections, and other Rovian tactics. This ought to keep the moonbats busy, and make them spend their monies in all the wrong places.

God you can't make this shit up!

[PeterUK]

Barney,
Yes,Iraq creates more terrorists the same way that the Wehrmacht getting decimated on the Russian front created more troops fore Germany.
What these idiots do no understand is there is no everlasting pool of knowledge and expertise.Napoleon learned that when his Grand Armee of 500,000 was cut to pieces,again in Russia,no fighting force can take that kind of degrading of its knowledge base

[boris]

No, I don't think ...

Making the observation that disunity helps the enemy is legitimate because it's true.

Labeling a true observation as "scaremongering" is political BS.

It is you doing the mongering because it is you advocating retreat from a dangerous reality. It is you claiming tigers are not to be feared. It is you that's stuck in a 910 mentality.

[boris]

It is you that's one of the "idiot".

[lurker]

Just like Fallujah, Baghdad district now enclosed and working their way in.

Now the militias will fight for their lives..

[boris]

The real question "one of the idiot" can't quite put into words is this ...

Just because we're at war does that mean we're all supposed to pretend to be unified and stand as one against the enemy even though the minority party would rather do things differently?

Answer: yes

The constitution gives congress the authority to declare war, but does not explicitly grant them power to undeclare war. "One of the idiot" should contemplate the implication of that fact.

[Slartibartfast]

Making the observation that disunity helps the enemy is legitimate because it's true.

And it's true because you said so. Got it.

There's a name for arguments of that kind, but I'm frankly so uninterested in educating you on that front that I'm going to leave it as an exercise for the student.

It is you doing the mongering because it is you advocating retreat from a dangerous reality.

Really? Where?

It is you claiming tigers are not to be feared.

No, I'm not. I am, however, shying away from arguments to the effect that it's the disunity that's making the tigers attack.

You, on the other hand, are in effect arguing that disunity=treason. Which, effectively, is resulting in more disunity. So that finger you're pointing, and that pain you're feeling in your backside: there's a cause-and-effect relationship at work there that you might want to consider.

[Slartibartfast]

The real question "one of the idiot" can't quite put into words is this ...

Do continue your war on typos, though. It's what really matters.

[boris]

I like the nickname. Get used to it.

[boris]

And it's true because you said so. Got it.

"Divide and conquer", ever hear of it?

[boris]

arguing that disunity=treason

Known as a straw dummy argument, one of the idiot.

Disunity helps the enemy. Fact.

Helping the enemy by opposing elected officials in time of war = treason ...

That's your claim oh idiot of one.

[lurker]

Let's hope it falls apart or Lebanon and/or Hezbollah will reject the UN resolution, which will allow Israel to purge the Hezbollah all the way to Litani River.

[boris]

disunity that's making the tigers attack

Idiot Of One tries for analogy ... flops ...

The real analogy ...

Idiot Of One: Those officials claiming tigers are dangerous are SCAREMONGERING !!!! DON'T BELIEVE THEM !!!

My Claim ... The officials are behaving responsibly dispensing relevant information to the public. It is Idiot Of One who is advocating a dangerous policy from 910land.

[lurker]

What and why would Lamont have to say about the graph above?

Nothing?

Even if Russia gets its 72-hour humanitarian ceasefire, will Hezbollah honor it?

No.

If UN gets the current resolution approved, will Hezbollah approve it?

No.

The Hezzies will continue to fire rockets towards Israel, which gives Israel every right to defend its own country.

[lurker]

Sorry, image not provided, so here's the link

[Pete]

It is important to remember that al qaeda has already been emboldened by Bush's decision to go into Iraq with inadequate troops and without a post war plan.

Does anyone seriously believe that Bush will only pull out of Iraq after the last insurgent/terrorist has been hunted down? Cheney once made this statement, but the Bush administration has not repeated it since. Now violence is spiralling on Iraq, and even our own generals are conceding what they said they did not think one year ago - civil war is possible.

It is worth revisiting what Powell said to Bush - "you broke it, you own it". The excuse cannot be made that future events are impossible to predict. Bush was specifically warned about it. And instead of having a plan to fix what he broke, the best that Bush can come up with is - "Hey the Democrats do not have a plan either".

[lurker]

"It is important to remember that al qaeda has already been emboldened by Bush's decision to go into Iraq with inadequate troops and without a post war plan."

So? They were fighting for their misinterpretation of the Koran. Inadequate troops? Nuh huh. We wiped out Iraq within weeks with air strikes. You said, "go into Iraq". As for post-war plans, you forgot to study the post-WWII plans. Lessons learned so it's beneficial for us.

"Does anyone seriously believe that Bush will only pull out of Iraq after the last insurgent/terrorist has been hunted down? Cheney once made this statement, but the Bush administration has not repeated it since. Now violence is spiralling on Iraq, and even our own generals are conceding what they said they did not think one year ago - civil war is possible."

Violence spiralling? It will soon be reined in as we go after Sadr's army, just like we did with Fallujah. As for civil war being possible, so?

"It is worth revisiting what Powell said to Bush - "you broke it, you own it". The excuse cannot be made that future events are impossible to predict. Bush was specifically warned about it. And instead of having a plan to fix what he broke, the best that Bush can come up with is - "Hey the Democrats do not have a plan either".

So? There is such a thing called accountability and responsibility. Bush has been held accountable and responsible. And he's been able to tackle any new problems that he considers need addressing. He's right about the democrats. The dems don't have a plan.

WWII was fraught with similar problems and people learn from it. Give Bush a break, repeat pete.

[boris]

already been emboldened

Yeah that must be why they're either at room tempature or hiding in caves and have to resort to incompetent proxy UK terrorists that couldn't evade the Keystone Cops or Car 54.

[lurker]

Repeat, negative Pete, you sound just like a crybaby pointing out the negatives and finding fault at everything Bush, Cheney, and Rove do. You've earned your nickname very well.

[Gary Maxwell]

I see repete is back. Why is there never even a second verse to this tired song?

[Slartibartfast]

Disunity helps the enemy. Fact.

And by disagreeing with me, you are helping the enemy. Traitor!

Helping the enemy by opposing elected officials in time of war = treason ...

I'm not sure whether I should be more amused or dismayed by this.

[Slartibartfast]

The officials are behaving responsibly dispensing relevant information to the public.

Which information might that be, and how is it relevant? Do you even know what you're talking about?

It is important to remember that al qaeda has already been emboldened by Bush's decision to go into Iraq with inadequate troops and without a post war plan.

I'm curious what won't embolden Al Qaeda, and why you're thinking (if you are thinking, that is) why this particular set of things would embolden them.

Me, I don't see that too much scares them or deters them, so we might just as well hunt them all down and kill them. But that's just the opinion of a disloyal, treasonous barking moonbat.

[PeterUK]

"It is important to remember that al qaeda has already been emboldened by Bush's decision to go into Iraq with inadequate troops and without a post war plan."

As yet, one you military geniuses has come up with a realistic figures for troop levels.BTW Pete,the troops were far from inadequate,what you are struggling to convey,in your pedestrian way,is inadequate troop levels.You wouldn't want to smear those who serve would you now?

Secondly, there were plans for post bellum Iraq,the Coalition had them,the Ba'athists had plans,the Iranians and the Syrians had plans,al Qaeda had plans,the Shia and the Sunnis had plans,all the criminals Saddam Hussein released from prison had plans,what you see in Iraq is a synthesis of all those plans.Confusing isn't it when all those plans come together?
Read a little history,all those conflicting plans,usually those whose plan prevails get to write the history,consequently it all tends to look very simple,but look around,life isn't simple.

[boris]

That's your claim One of the Idiot, not mine.

Helping the enemy = treason

In general that is false. So therfore you are wrong to make that claim. In other words, you are the Idiot of One.

In an abstract sense (i.e. don't even bother trying to figure this out One Of the Idiot) the analogy is this:

Tigers are dangerous.

Is equivalent to:

Disunity helps the enemy.

Both are fundamentaly factual and legitimate for public officials to convey. To claim that either one is scaremongering or false is irresponsible.

Disunity, as a concept, has no direct connect to tigers, but it is possible to say for instance that "traveling alone in the jungle is more dangerous than staying together and traveling in groups because of the tigers". So in that sense one could analogize that Disunity = Danger.

That's not the point of the original analogy of course, just illustrating that Idiot of One really is One of the Idiot.

[Sue]

I like the left's argument. It is the same argument they used in 2002, 2004 and looks to be the same one they will use in 2006. Hey, can we go for 2008 also?

::grin::

[Other Tom]

Reasons for invading Iraq, as articulated by the indicated notables (the astute reader will recognize these as having been previously posted on another thread, but it's so much fun I can't stop myself):

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.”
W. J. Clinton, February 17, 1998

" He has used such [chemical] weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again..."
W.J. Clinton, December 19, 1998

[Sue]

I'm curious what won't embolden Al Qaeda, and why you're thinking (if you are thinking, that is) why this particular set of things would embolden them.

Another munching on one of their own...how does it feel Pete to have your thought process questioned by a fellow lefty? ::grin::

[Bob]

Just what I expected... the derange moonbats, aren't done yet. They won't be happy until they kill the democrat party... and either will I!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2771848>Tell Harry Reid To Strip Lieberman Of All Democratic Committee Positions

[PeterUK]

Boris,
A question,there has been an horrific terrorist atrocity splashed over the MSM,Democratic Senators call for the troops to be withdrawn,"over the horizon" Okinawa even,others call US troop killers,yet more are jumping up and down condemning an illegal war,that it is US policy that has caused this,others are saying if the were in charge, peace would reign.
You are the leader of a terrorist group,perhaps even an Ayatollah perhaps.Do you think,
1) Sounds interesting,I'll catch it after the game.
2)Hey, these Democrats think like me.
3)One more time!

[Sue]

Okay, I've stopped laughing about Slart munching on Petey.

My particular thought is it doesn't matter what we do, they will come after us. Each time they declare war on us (and they have declared war, some people just weren't listening) they have a new and better set of reasons for doing so. Face it, they are fulfilling what the consider to be a command from God. Kill the infidels. That would be you and me. ::grin::

[Slartibartfast]

Helping the enemy = treason

In general that is false.

Could you get it more completely backward than this? I mean, all I did was quote your own statement back to you, and you managed to not only misquote yourself, but you got the conclusion completely wrong. So calling me an idiot, well, I just consider the source.

Disunity helps the enemy.

Both are fundamentaly factual and legitimate for public officials to convey.

How does it help the enemy, specifically? And why is the administration helping the enemy by not making nice-nice with Democrats? Why are Democrats helping the enemy by not simply stepping aside and letting more agreeable Republicans have a chance at office? I mean, that's all in the service of more unity.

This theory of yours that we all ought to agree on everything in a time of war...not only does it have no precedent in fact, but it has no precedent in law. If we have to shut down debate simply because there's a war on, we're not nearly as strong as we ought to be.

Now, the response to differences of opinion that would tend to forward your cause of unity more would be to engage in the debate and persuade your opponent so that agreement has a chance to occur. By not doing that, you are sowing disunity.

Traitor. But in the interest of unity, I'm wondering just how far down the chain of government I have to go before voting for someone you disapprove of backs away from treason.

[TexasToast]

As to Mr. Lamont's recycling of the anti-war talking point that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda when we invaded in 2003 - it's time to move on, sir. Regardless of the situation then, I don't think serious observers doubt that as of 2006, Al Qaeda would be emboldened by an American collapse in Iraq - certainly Osama bin Ladin, based on his own rhetoric, was emboldened by apparent American weakness in Lebanon and Somalia.

Let me get this straight. Even though:

1) invading Iraq had a negative effect on the GWOT and terrorist recruiting by putting an American army on Arab soil for the indefinite future (dispute the stated goal of AQ to eject American troops from Saudi);

2) it becomes more and more clear that our "offensive" against terrorism has become, at best, a game of hammer heads in Iraq:

3) our experiment at exporting "democracy" produces a constitution incorporating Shari'a (religious) law, a profoundly undemocratic feature;

4) the factions in Iraq prove that they have no interest in staying as a part of Iraq even under an "Islamic" government and become cats paws of powers who have an interest in tying down the US military indefinitely;

5) the British prove that good police work can stop terrorist plots (Scotland Yard - not the British army);

and

6) we are being told that exercising one of the basic features of democracy - dissent - makes us pussys at best and traitors at worst

With all of this, we can't say that its time for us to move on, declare victory, and tell the Iraqis its time to "stand up" because our "weakness" would embolden AQ? I thought the current line was that we had seriously weakened AQ's ability to operate - that we had gutted their leadership and command - that we had them on the run. Are you folks seriously saying that a withdrawal from Iraq would reverse these "successes"? If we have them on the run, why do we care if they are bold? If we don't have them on the run, how is our occupation of Iraq helping to put them on the run?

[Sue]

It used to be land for peace. Give the Palestinians a state and all would be right with the world. Hmmm...how's that going? Each time land is given back, they attack again, having won the last round, let's go for broke.

Then it was US troops on holy land. Get out of Saudi, they cried, and all will be right with the world. Hmmm...how's that going?

Then it was Afghanistan and Iraq.

Next on the hit parade?

Because they aren't going away.

Not...gonna...happen...

[boris]

I mean, all I did was quote your own statement back to you

Wrong again Idiot of One.

My Claim: Disunity helps the enemy, FACT.

Your Claim: Helping the enemy = treason.

What you claim is quoting me is actually me paraphrasing you. Too abstract for One of the Idiot? Guess so.

[Sue]

TT,

Look to Afghanistan for your answer, oh wise one.

[boris]

Idiot of One, too bad you wasted that whole long rant on a false premise.

[Slartibartfast]

Another munching on one of their own...how does it feel Pete to have your thought process questioned by a fellow lefty? ::grin::

A little self-googling shows that I and my now-defunct blog have pretty much slid from reality's backup, so I'll let this slide. Some of y'all are relatively new here and are somehow thinking I'm a lefty. Which makes me chuckle, right before I throw up in my mouth just a little bit.

[boris]

Lefty or not, you are the Idiot of One

[Gary Maxwell]

Kill the infidels.

And infidel means different things to different people. Jews, Christians and Atheists make most lists. Then Druze and Alewhites makes many of those same lists. And then its Shia. And finally its all non Wahabists.

So why to some, doesn't this sound so much like the third reich's goals? Bush called them Islamic fascists. When the ovens are cranked up and they start coming for you, isn't a little too late to be concerned?

For exactly whom did Hemingway say the bell was tolling?

[Slartibartfast]

My Claim: Disunity helps the enemy, FACT.

My claim: argument by assertion helps the enemy. It's a fact!

Of course, not nuking Saudi Arabia probably helps the enemy, too, so bad us for not doing that. What a sad lot of traitors we are.

[Sue]

Awwww...how sad. When both of your arguments sound the same, and Petey is a well known lefty around here, and relative is relative you know, I've been here a while now and Petey is known to me but you...aren't...you'll pardon my assumption that you are a lefty. ::grin::

Not sure why I would want to google you...you really aren't that important to me. A fine diversion for JOM on a Friday morn, but nothing more.

[Cecil Turner]

Me, I don't see that too much scares them or deters them, so we might just as well hunt them all down and kill them.

Well, I'm not too comfortable with Sedition Acts, loyalty oaths and the like, so I don't really want to sign on to the "disunity" thing. However, I think it's worth noting that free speech carries some responsibility with it, and certainly affects the way a democracy (or democratic republic) wages war. And some statements, especially by public figures, could be expected to provide "aid and comfort" to the enemy. Factors that go into determining whether a position is irresponsible include the stature of the public figure, the legitimate political debate involved, and the degree to which it would serve to give heart to our enemies. Seeing one make headlines on Al Jazeera is a pretty good indicator it's over-the-top.

That said, the perception of disunity abroad is clearly counterproductive, gives hope to our enemies they may win by default a victory they couldn't achieve militarily, and hence strengthens their resolve and boosts their troops' morale whilst simultaneously disheartening our own troops. Nonsense like sam's repetitive litany of woes would be borderline treasonous, if it had any impact (it doesn't, so it isn't, but not for want of trying). Similarly, watching our news media whine about government attempts to support positive coverage in foreign press, while swallowing running enemy propaganda as fact, and it's no wonder we're losing the propaganda war. I don't think that's an insignificant issue, nor am I willing to extend a presumption of patriotism to the fellow travelers and useful idiots who appear to be largely responsible.

[Gary Maxwell]

Hey TT

You know we disagree on the shape of the table so there aint no need sititng down to negotiations. And I aint big on months of discussions on the shape of the table, for what its worth.

But for the record, I never called you a pussy. But if thats what your spider senses are telling you, well if the shoe fits, dance brother.

[Sue]

I don't think that's an insignificant issue, nor am I willing to extend a presumption of patriotism to the fellow travelers and useful idiots who appear to be largely responsible.

Me either. However, I haven't really seen to many of them as useful, idiot or otherwise.

[Don]

Slartibartfast-I remember you from somewhere on the web. Lefty you ain't, indeed.

Isn't it funny to see how you get branded for the slightest hint of heresy?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

It is important to remember that al qaeda has already been emboldened by Bush's decision to go into Iraq with inadequate troops and without a post war plan.

Only if it were true.

(There's two more points to give numbers.)

[Slartibartfast]

However, I think it's worth noting that free speech carries some responsibility with it, and certainly affects the way a democracy (or democratic republic) wages war.

Absolutely. This goes to many topics, the mindless accusations of treason among them.

I take treason most seriously. The penalty for treason is death. For those of you who are casually referring to folks as treasonous, consider that this might appear to me to be a wee bit over the top.

Absolutely there's a propaganda war on, Cecil, which makes it all that much more important that these things get addressed in debate. Where's the Republican leadership when folks like John Kerry come out and say something absurd and untrue in public? Where did the precise, decisive smackdown wander off to?

[Gary Maxwell]

I think the point is, that the propagandist sees them as useful. That you are inciteful and street smart enough to know, someone is lying if they pee on your boots and try to tell you its raining, is wholly beside the point. As we can see from the cast of characters posting nonsense, there are a lot of gullible types who swallow almost anything put in front of them.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

"For exactly whom did Hemingway say the bell was tolling?"

John Donne. Hemingway took his title from the poem.

[PeterUK]

I have watched the American political scene open mouthed with horror as the Loyal Opposition has sought to use the Iraq war and the WoT in general for domestic political gain.
Never in time of war have I seen a political party act with such disgraceful cusuistry.
Of course they read the news in Tehran and Damascus,hasn't anyone noticed al Qaeda uses Democratic talking points? Has it escaped the left's notice that terrorist campaigns are tailored to meet the news cycle and to influence politics.Do these idiots think they are conducting this chimpanzee's teaparty in a vacuum.
God how Ahmadinejad must laugh!

[boris]

Sedition Acts, loyalty oaths and the like

To say that disunity helps the enemy is a simple factual observation. It implies no call for legal action or private retribution.

Claiming that's an accusation of treason is irrational and detracts from serious debate. In some cases "disunity" can become willful "aid and comfort to the enemy" and that is a seperate category to be sure.

Getting to that discussion is impossible while any reference to disunity draws accusations of accusations of accusations.

[Specter]

Marcel,

Can you point out any facts that say we are not still hunting Bin Laden? Wasn't it the last administration who had him pinned and let him go?

When Bush announced the GWOT he specifically said that it would take a long time - a LONG TIME. Remember that you are dealing with a culture that has raised their children to believe in the "Great Satan". This isn't a problem that is going to be solved in 6, 10, 24 - take your pick - months. Bush was actually telling people that it was going to take years.

[boris]

For those of you who are casually referring to folks as treasonous

That would be you, One of the Idiot.

Lesson for Idiot of One:

Boris: Disunity helps the enemy

Idiot of One: So you claim Disunity = Treason

Boris: No, you just claimed Helping the enemy = Treason

Idiot of One: I didn't say that, you did

Boris: Idiot of One = One of the Idiot

[Cecil Turner]

I take treason most seriously. The penalty for treason is death. For those of you who are casually referring to folks as treasonous, consider that this might appear to me to be a wee bit over the top.

What else do you call something that helps the enemy in wartime? I suppose, since we're discussing things that only help them a little, we could call it "a little bit treasonous." But it would be nice if we could all agree that statements having the effect of helping the enemy are a bad thing™, rather than somehow virtuous "speaking truth to power."

Where's the Republican leadership when folks like John Kerry come out and say something absurd and untrue in public? Where did the precise, decisive smackdown wander off to?

Again, I'm not willing to blame the pro-war folks for the idiotic statements of the anti-war camp. The White House could do better at information management (though they certainly aren't getting any help from our media). But people are responsible for their own statements, and that definitely includes Sen Kerry.

[lurker]

Repete, neg, pete...oh, he'll always be back every now and then with his negative harps without realizing that his recent comments are analogous of a typical management group of any corporation. Plus he did not give Bush the credit for taking accountability and responsibility for hitting this head on.

I say, "Good job, Bush".

"With all of this, we can't say that its time for us to move on, declare victory, and tell the Iraqis its time to "stand up" because our "weakness" would embolden AQ? I thought the current line was that we had seriously weakened AQ's ability to operate - that we had gutted their leadership and command - that we had them on the run. Are you folks seriously saying that a withdrawal from Iraq would reverse these "successes"? If we have them on the run, why do we care if they are bold? If we don't have them on the run, how is our occupation of Iraq helping to put them on the run?"

Texas Toast, uh...the answer is no. We can't just move on just yet. Robert Kaplan's book told a story about one of our military low-level leaders attending a local townhall meeting in one of those towns in Iraq, well-attended by its townpeople. This leader became very blunt, after being thrown lots of questions from the townpeople why the military couldn't stop the militia, in telling the townpeople that it's up to them to stand up against militia and insurgents and once they stand up against insurgents, then the military will stand up with them.

It takes time and slowly the Iraqi forces are taking over bits and pieces AND learning to go after the militias. I read a recent article about Al-Maliki jumping all over one of our military leaders about going after a Shi-ite because Al-Maliki is a Shi-ite. I'm willing to bet that Al-Maliki had a hard talking to about a difference between a law-abiding Shi-ite and a criminal Shi-iet because a few days later, I see both Iraqi and US military forces going after the Shi-ite militias.

Good.

US is battling GWOT on many fronts, military, diplomacy, financial, and other means. And there are other non-AQ terrorist organizations that need battling. Yes, it will reverse the successes put in place if we pull out.

Heck, we're still in Germany and Kosovo.

[Specter]

BTW - for the "not winning" group. Care to comment on the fact that we have reached the half-way point in standing up the Iraqi army? That they control more of the country than we do? That most violence in areas other than Baghdad has been quelled? It made the news this week - why aren't you telling us how false it is because all of you are so much more "connected" to the actual goings on there? C'mon - don't be shy -tell us how you know all this stuff....

[lurker]

Of course, we're still hunting for OBL.

[Don]

Specter-how about this:

"WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive."

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri."

[Specter]

Don,

So - the army units that were actively hunting him in afghanistan were CIA? I don't understand.

[Slartibartfast]

Helping the enemy IS treason, boris.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

But you still haven't established that disunity helps them. You've said it a number of times, but somehow the self-evidence of it isn't being communicated properly.

And if it'll help you stick with the topic, yes, I am an idiot. I am the world's biggest idiot, perhaps. I am, though, rather more appreciative of arguments that are based on something other than boris' say-so, so perhaps you'll now be able to actually visit the point and address it. It's feeling neglected by you.

Me, I'm not important.

[Specter]

So let's see. The government says:

The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

And Neddy says:

Lamont said the U.S. needs to focus on apprehending Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders and building "a credible, effective foreign policy with our allies."

[PeterUK]

"So - the army units that were actively hunting him in afghanistan were CIA? I don't understand."

Covert In Afghanistan.

[Specter]

And then Joe says:

"I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us - more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous that the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War," Lieberman said.

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

That's disunity. I bet lot's of hidden donations to Neddy's campaign come from Dearborn.....