Lamont's Win Shows Democrats Strong on Security
Suzanne Nossel and David Greenberg at Democracy Abroad do the best job I've seen yet at taking down the shibboleths.
Democrats have come to a consensus that a draining war that lacks a clear plan for victory, fought in a way that is training new terrorists and weakening our ability to respond militarily around the world, is now a net harm for our national security. While there are many options for how to redeploy, and how to do so while protecting our honor and preventing civil war, changing the current course in Iraq is essential for our national security. The refusal to change course--not the initial vote for the war--was why Lieberman lost.
Advertisement
you have to be joking. You're meant to be head of the Truman Democrats. Do you seriously trust Lamont, Dailykos, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Do you trust Russ Feingold? Will his nomination make us tougher? It's a platform that equates security purely with self protection and nothing else. By the way, name one plan for redeployment that will prevent civil war.
August 10, 2006 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've obviously never read or don't understand the Democrat's position on Iraq.
And, last I checked, Al Sharpton didn't have input on that particular plan.
And, we don't need to be "tougher." We need to be "smarter."
And, civil war is already underway.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
August 10, 2006 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. Good one. Do you seriously trust George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Perle and Bill O'Reilly? Do you trust Tom Delay? Did Lieberman really make America tougher? It's a platform that equates incompetent warmongering with self defense and nothing else. By the way, name one plan for staying in Iraq that will prevent civil war.
ROTFL
August 10, 2006 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democracy Abroad???? I love it!
(Have they given up on "Democracy in America")
August 10, 2006 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think if you were going to make the argument that Lamont's win means the Dems are "strong on security," there'd have to be:
1) A statement about what the US should do next (and assuming that means packing up and coming back immediately, or before the end of the year);
2) A statement about how "what we do next" increases US security.
What will happen in Iraq if the US pulls out Iraq now? Or by the end of the year? I don't know, but it looks like someone is assuming that whatever happens, it will be better for America's security than what is going on now.
Maybe it would be. Of course, maybe not. Say, for example, the US pulls out, there is full blown civil war between the Shia's and the Sunni's, and Iran decides to intervene on the side of the Shiite faction with ties to Iran. By intervene, I mean invade of course.
But I assume that would be better for American security, in the eyes of the author, than the presence of American's there. Maybe the Shiites, after being brutally surpressed by the Sunni's under Saddam, will decide that a little religious cleansing is in order. Of course, the Saudi's population is 85% Sunni, so not sure how well that would go down in Riyadh. Also there is the Saudi backing of Saad Hariri in Lebanaon while Iran Iran backs Hezbollah. Then there is the whole Syrian angle in Lebanon. It is comforting to know that no matter what happens after the US pulls out of Iraq, it cannot possibly be worse for American security than the status quo.
The Iraqi Shiites, if anyone is confused, are the ones taking to the streets and shouting "Death to Israel!" They support Hezbollah, it goes without saying. They make up 60% of Iraq. Of course, one can construct an argument that it would be better for American security in the long term for Israel not to exist at all. It would be especially easy to make that argument when all you do is state that conclusion with no analysis of the potential consequences.
Maybe it would enhance American security for the US to pull out immediately, but wouldn't it be better to offer up some sort of analysis of what is likely to happen in Iraq after the US pulls out, and analyze how that will be better for American security than the status quo?
August 10, 2006 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
YOu are perfectly entitled to your opinion. My point is just that someone like Rachel should stop pretending that the Conn result is anything other than a resounding position for those whof us who adhere to the Truman Democrat's worldview. We should have the argument about which is better, not shy away from it. I mentioned Shaprton, Jackson, et al because they were the prominent backers of Lamont. As to your question, I think the current plan makes all out civil war much less likely.
August 10, 2006 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, Rachel,
Wishful thinking but I'm afraid it shows nothing of the sort. Not even a little bit.
Lamont has NO political experience EVER, yet his win in a mere primary is supposed to exhibit to American voters why the Democrats are strong on defense?
That's no better than being duped by Bush's lies.
August 10, 2006 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your the energizer bunny of right wing trolls. This is the new talking point? Lamont is inexperienced? First of all as usualy your reading comprehension is lacking, this vote is a demonstration that Democratic voters who take foriegn policy seriously.
Lamont isn't being asked to formulate the foreign policy of the Democratic party. He is going to be the Jr Senator from CT.
He will be one more reliable vote for the Levin/Reid plan that is emerging as the consensus position on Iraq. Dem voters in CT show they are serious by understanding that votes have consequences, Joe has given every indication that he would have been one of the last votes standing with Bush after even most moderate Reps jump ship. Voters rightfully said this is untenable and voted him out for it.
August 10, 2006 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This keeps getting censored by the Lamontster scrub out the truth squads.. he has to protect his propagandists for hire, as he's too chickenhearted to let the CT voters decide for themselves
The GOP are making public claims of this to help the Lamont campaign, because it's their only way of getting a republican from CT in that senate seat.
BTW, why is no brave blogger writing about Jerome Armstrong's (mydd.com founder) SEC violation for securities fraud, ripping off investors? A payola scheme similar to the one he and Markos of Daily Kos run in democratic races? Pay for protection.. ie, either cough up huge sums or we'll slander you and your candidacy?
Armstrong can't comment because he signed an agreement admitting his wrongdoing, but Koss attempts to paint Armstrong as only being a poor young grad student who was tempted.. despite the fact that at the time Armstrong was in his 30s.
Here's the url for the SEC charge
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18088.htm
and as an aside, Armstrong's conviction on weapons charges from when he was 29
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2005/mar/ armstrong.html
If the GOP felt Markos and Armstrong such a threat to them, they'd crush them easily, instead their blogging helps the GOP fend off what was a increasingly unpopular republican majority.
August 10, 2006 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Experience may be valuable, but it does not have to. Many know, but refuse to learn.
A hamster, after 18 years in a wheel, will not lead us in a new direction. Joe Lieberman joined a Committee on Present Dangers that tries to revive everything that was wrong during Cold War, starting from totally overblown diagnosis of the threats that faced us. And from that diagnosis followed faulty prescriptions: spend twice as much on defence than necessary, overthrow any democratic government that may be sympathetic to the diabolical enemy, support terrorists and goons if they are against bad guys, engage in military quagmires, etc.
Sometimes lack of experience can be a plus.
August 10, 2006 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to look up the definition of a troll.
Posting the same off topic post in every thread is pretty much the classic definition.
August 10, 2006 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, why is no brave blogger writing about...
Please. Go -- be that brave blogger.
Our democracy depends on it.
Please.
www.blogger.com. It's easy.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
August 10, 2006 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Strong on defense?"
You guys really are just a nation based on fear aren't you?
August 10, 2006 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
EWK
Just because you do not agree with me does not make me a troll. I find it funny that you, as a Democrat, are so intolerant of other ideas. You should stop being so closed-minded.
Also, I never said one single word about the Levin/Reid plan. So I'd love to know where you get the reasoning to make that rhetorical jump.
Rachel said Lamont's victory is a signal to Americans that Democrats are serious about defense.
I would say Democrats, though lacking a true plan, have always been serious about defense. Additionally, Lamont brings nothing to the table in terms of substantive solutions other than another 'brick in the wall' for Democratic support.
August 10, 2006 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so. The current "course" is in no way shape or form helping America's National Security.
What Connecticut voters voted for was changing the incompetent, moronic, status quo the Republicans have the Country mired in.
There are many alternatives and it's time Congress started discussing some.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
August 11, 2006 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg, I see you are tracking the great know-it-all Charles Krauthammer.
If you ignore the "snarky" parts of CK's column, it leaves many unanswered questions: When and how will which war be over. If he means Iraq, then he has to say more about how "we" will end that. If he means the GWOT then he must tell us who will be on "our side" if we have no allies, you know the folks who dropped the ball with Iran and let them "go nuclear".
Give me a break. The neocons have brought us to this pass and have yet to realize that arming Israel with M6 artillery rockets is only proving to Arabs and militant Muslims that they are right about the U.S.
"Islamic-fascists", Mr. Bush's current vocabulary meant to demonstrate his satisfaction with the British accomplishment and his anger with "al Qaeda types" (thanks to Vice) obscures the real option left to the U.S.
Lamont and other antiwar "types" do not propose that the U.S. leave Iraq altogether. The proposal is to move our troops to the "horizon" in order to get them out of the view of the jihadists. It is pretty hard to push against a string.
Moreover, I find it reprehensible that the reporting from Iraq, see the cover of TIME reveals the disaster that has been visited on the Iraqi's and our glorious leaders - Bush and Cheney, those battle scarred veterans -- are doing what they do best: turning to partisan politics as if that will save them yet again at the polls.
August 11, 2006 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I rarely, if ever, wield my "0" power, because (1) I think we're big enough to handle even the fiercest wingnut, and (2) I kinda like crackpots. They're fun. But as commenters have accurately pointed out other times Mary has posted this nonsense, her claim that the "weapons charges" refer to the Jerome Armstrong formerly of MyDD is demonstrably false and, therefore, libelous. This should earn her a permanent ban from this community in my view.
Update: And I have written TPMCafe Management and asked for precisely that.
August 11, 2006 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink