You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Ned Lamont is Howard Dean 2.0
2006-08-14
by Jim Geraghty, National Review

Ned Lamont is going to be huge this fall.

I don't mean huge in terms of poll numbers, I mean huge in terms of the number of times he's cited by Republicans and conservatives as a reason why voters shouldn't trust Democrats on National Security.

Charles Krauthammer:

Lamont said in his victory speech that the time had come to "fix George Bush's failed foreign policy." Yet, as Martin Peretz pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, on Iran, the looming long-term Islamist threat, Lamont's views are risible. Lamont's alternative to the Bush Iran policy is to "bring in allies" and "use carrots as well as sticks."

Where has this man been? Negotiators with Iran have had carrots coming out of their ears in three years of fruitless negotiations. Allies? We let the British, French and Germans negotiate with Iran for those three years, only to have Iran brazenly begin accelerated uranium enrichment that continues to this day.

Lamont seems to think that we should just sit down with the Iranians and show them why going nuclear is not a good idea. This recalls Sen. William Borah's immortal reaction in September 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II: "Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."

Lamont, on Fox News Sunday:

LAMONT: No, I think on the contrary. What this election showed is that a lot of people in Connecticut think that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with our war on terror. It's been a terrible distraction.

Here you are talking about the failed terrorist plot today. It originated in Pakistan, goes through London, and here we have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

Ahem. From the London Times:

The investigation into the suspected Al-Qaeda leader in Britain and his UK associates was considered by Eliza Manningham-Buller, MI5’s director-general, to be the security service’s single most important line of inquiry. He is suspected of being behind two “pipelines” which saw potential terrorist recruits being sent for training at camps in Pakistan and to join the “holy war” in Iraq.

The Al-Qaeda leader — who cannot be named for legal reasons— acts as a suspected hub in a network of extremist groups. These include Kashmiri and north African groups based in this country. He is linked to a second suspect also in Britain who has “played a major role in facilitating support for the Iraq jihad”.

A third associate is an Iraqi who came to Britain in 2004 and worked on providing support for British extremists who wanted to travel to Iraq to fight the “holy war”.

MI5 said he acquired weapons in preparation for an unspecified attack in Britain. He was detained in January last year pending deportation to Iraq.

"Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror", other than the fact that the head of al-Qaeda in London and his henchmen are sending recruits to Iraq. But U.S. forces should not hunt al-Qaeda in Iraq, because ... because ... well ... oilyellowcakebushliedpeoplediedwmdsplame.

More from Lamont on Fox News Sunday:

We also are much stronger when we work in concert with our allies, when we have shared intelligence. And I think that we've taken our eye off the ball there a little bit, and I think it's time to focus.

Okay, Mr. Lamont. Let’s hear it. How has the U.S. government “taken its eye off the ball” in intelligence-sharing? And how would you, as Senator, ensure the requisite focus?

How, exactly, can he argue that "weÂ’ve taken our eye off the ball in sharing intelligence" three days after U.K., U.S., and Pakistani authorities worked together to take down a terror cell allegedly days away from launching an attack that could have killed more than 9/11?

How can Lamont argue that the U.S. should "work with allies" on Iran when most Democrats are arguing that the Bush administration ought to sit down and negotiate directly with Ahmedinijad? He's not even in line with the rest of his party's criticisms...
Posted by:Mike

#9  Ester, Ester! Put a bag over you head and go check CNN for the results,

because the remote hate you!
Posted by: Fred G   2006-08-14 19:50  

#8  We got a Lamont? Oh noooooooooo! Who'll take care of the empire?
Posted by: Fred G   2006-08-14 19:48  

#7  Well Fred I got a second on that motion. Whadya say? Picture it now:

Q: Well Mr. Dem, what do you think about the price of gas these days?
A: oilyellowcakebushliedpeoplediedwmdsplame!

Q: Ok, but what about trade with China?
A: oilyellowcakebushliedpeoplediedwmdsplame!

Q: Seriously, what about embryos for stem cell research? It's creating quite a controversy.
A: oilyellowcakebushliedpeoplediedwmdsplame!

Q: Ummm...Ok. Last question. What about the rumored engagement of Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn?
A: oilyellowcakebushliedpeoplediedwmdsplame!
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-08-14 19:26  

#6  Like a skipping record, it will drive you insane.
Posted by: djohn66   2006-08-14 19:18  

#5  "oilyellowcakebushliedpeoplediedwmdsplame"

This should be a permanant addition to the Rantburg dictionary


I second that motion!
Posted by: Evil Elvis   2006-08-14 13:50  

#4  Well we might have lost a McKinney, but we got a freaking Lamont. w00t!
Posted by: Evil Elvis   2006-08-14 13:48  

#3  "oilyellowcakebushliedpeoplediedwmdsplame"

This should be a permanant addition to the Rantburg dictionary.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-08-14 12:46  

#2  Dave D..."...Bottom Notch"

Bottom notch, hell, they've dug a trench and put the bar at the bottom, AND THEY'RE STILL GOING UNDER IT!
Posted by: AlanC   2006-08-14 12:46  

#1  How, exactly, can he argue that "weÂ’ve taken our eye off the ball in sharing intelligence" three days after U.K., U.S., and Pakistani authorities worked together to take down a terror cell allegedly days away from launching an attack that could have killed more than 9/11?

Because he's a Democrat. Nobody-- and I mean NOBODY-- expects Democrats to make a lick of sense anymore.

Like the Muslim bar for "victory" in battle, the "not a fucking idiot" bar for Democrats is set on the very lowest, bottom notch.

God help us all if the people of Connecticut are dimwitted enough to elect this shitforbrains to the Senate.

Posted by: Dave D.   2006-08-14 11:33  

00:00