“That was unfortunate timing [two weeks ago] for the Lamont Democrats, declaring themselves officially the anti-war party within 24 hours of the Brits foiling an Islamic terror plot to spread thousands of U.S.-bound bodies across the North Atlantic, or perhaps across New York, Boston and Washington as the planes descended. Yes, we know; they
the war on terror, but are merely against George Bush’s war in Iraq. How does that work?” Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger writes.
Theweek before the Lamont victory, “12 members of the congressional Democratic leadership sent President Bush a letter urging that he start a phased pullout from Iraq, euphemized as a ‘redeployment,’ starting before the end of this year. But it is becoming increasingly fantastic to argue that Iraq, with its apparently limitless supply of suicide bombers, hasn’t much to do with the terror threats manifest elsewhere,” Mr. Henninger said.
“Put it this way: From the perspective as of [Aug. 10] of getting on a U.S. airliner, who would you rather have in the Senate formulating policy toward this threat — Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman?
“Well, the Democratic Party would rather have Ned Lamont. That commitment was sealed [Aug. 9] when Mr. Lieberman’s longtime colleagues in the Senate, in one of the least edifying spectacles in recent political history, pledged their troth to the one-issue neophyte, Ned Lamont. Sens. Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Reid and, most embarrassing of all, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, participated in what can only be seen as a tragic Shakespearean assassination of a former colleague.
“With the knifing of Joe Lieberman, the Democrats have locked in as the anti-war party. No turning back now. You’re in or you’re out.”