Anti-war party

The Washington Times Weekly - - National - Com­piled by Greg Pierce

“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.”

sup­port

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.