August 2006


Senator Lieberman: Go To Hell

I was silently jubilant Wednesday morning when I learned that Ned Lamont had managed to defeat Bush-Kissing Senator Lieberman in the Democratic Primary. My joy was tempered by the fact that Bush-Kissing Senator Lieberman had decided to run for Senate on the “Connecticut for Lieberman” ticket.

Now I am furious.

Bush-Kissing Lieberman is now suggesting that Lamont (and others who think the Iraqi War might have been a mistake) is, get this, timid on national defense. He is joined by Dick Cheney who suggested that Lieberman’s defeat might encourage terrorists to attack.

Excuse me?

This is bullshit.

Back when Bill Clinton was president, Clinton would occasionally do things to defeat terrorism. Remember Operation Bojinka—the plot to blow up 12 planes over the Pacific Ocean back in ’95?

Foiled, not once did Bill Clinton suggest that the defeat of Democrats in an election would only serve to encourage terrorists to attack America.

Now we have George W. Bush in office and the second he is criticized (something healthy for democracy), those pointing out flaws and asking questions are told that they are only encouraging terrorists. Attacking critics is not just encouraging trampling of the first amendment, it’s un-American.

Now let me point something out: Under the Clinton Administration there was the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the home-grown terrorist attack in Oklahoma City. Put together these attacks came nowhere near killing the 2,976 individuals killed on September 11, 2001. Maybe Clinton and the Democrats were far more proactive in combating terrorism than you give them credit for.

Meanwhile it’s a bit strange that the Republicans in control keep blaming the Democrats lacking control for encouraging terrorist attacks.

4 comments to Senator Lieberman: Go To Hell

  • Keep in mind that while I’m saying this I am by NO MEANS a Bush supporter.

    9/11 took more than 8 months to plan, prepare for, and execute. The terroist pilots were training for it long before Bush was in office, from what I’ve read they really got started around 1996. Unfortunately this puts the bulk of it on Clinton’s watch.

    I personally don’t think you can blame Bush or Clinton for 9/11 in its entirety. What can be blamed is the bickering between the executive and legislative branches during that time regarding military deployments. The only thing I think Bush could be entirely held resonsible for (re: 9/11) was not paying attention to his advisors that were telling him what was coming back in August of 2001, when the terrorists were performing their dry runs of the attack.

    What has happened since 9/11 you can blame Bush and his Republican colleagues for, they’ve been in control of EVERY branch of the US government since that time, except the Senate from the attack until January 2003.

    They’ve spent billions in the name of security and all I can really see that they’ve accomplished is a larger government, public nuisance, and given the airport screeners fancy new uniforms.

    If those billions were to be spent on better security they should have trained screeners much more intensely and paid them a wage consistent with what they are expected to accomplish and give them adequate training to accomplish it. It’s really sad when the person that asks me, “Want fries with that?” gets paid more than the person that is supposed to detect bombs that will bring my flight down.

  • I realize that Clinton was in office for most of the planning of 9/11, but… I wouldn’t expect plans to be foiled early in the planning stage that often, rather one should be able to foil them as they are putting things in place to actually carry out a plan.

    Kind of the way Britain foiled this week’s terrorist threat.

    I’m actually concerned that we might be arresting people too early. I read something recently that many of the so-called terrorists Bush’s administration has been arresting are aspirational rather than actual terrorists. To me there’s a world of difference between talking about doing something and actually doing it. It’s protected speach to discuss how one might carry out a terrorist attack (e.g. “Let’s fly planes into a building.”), as opposed to doing something about it (e.g. “Teach me how to fly a 767.”).

    I might point out that the Clinton Admistration was in control when the 2000 Millennium Attack Plot was foiled, an attempt to bomb LAX airport. I won’t give too much credit to Clinton as it was a customs agent who discovered the plot–but the point remains that Clinton never once suggested that electing a Republican would have encouraged more terrorism and that it was necessary to elect a Democrat to discourage it.

    Funny enough, I’m now of the opinion that electing Democrats (and real ones, not Bush Kissing Lieberman) would decrease the terror risk–principally because Democrats don’t see the world in black and white, they see shades of grey. I also believe this because the Republican attack on Iraq appears not to have decreased the risk of terror at all–rather it has encouraged terrorists who (rightly) think that the US is trying to hurt Muslims in Iraq and the Middle East.

  • hey adam, you apparently traveled safe, no? i just did some backtrack reading. i’m still digesting your two most recent entries, and i’ll comment when i feel more articulate. i’d like to say that i’m the one with the german accent calling you, but i’m sure you know that’s a lie. anyways, i miss you and hope you’re doing well.

    ooooh shit, running late. gotta get ready for work!

  • I am back… safely. I even checked my luggage. Beyond my laptop and other important belongings, the only thing I stuck in my carry-on was my toothbrush and toothpaste, solely because buying a toothbrush and toothpaste in Germany on a Sunday can be a big pain in the ass!