Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/14/lamont.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/08/14/lamont.ap/index.html</a> Dick Cheney continued his fear talk, insisting that voting in Ned Lamont in Connecticut would embolden terrorists. In other words, vote Democrat and the terrorists are happy - despite bin Laden's (remember him?) comments to the contrary in 04. I thought Lamont handled this really well and the response suggests that Americans are seeing through the administration's fearmongering.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Amazing you believe Bin Ladin but not Chaney - tells me a lot" bin Laden said it didn't matter if Americans voted Kerry or Bush. You think he was lying and secretly wanted Kerry? You don't think Cheney's just playing politics as usual? The fact that you don't find Cheney's ill regard for our system of Democracy troubling tells me much about you, since we're apparently making this personal. Cheney essentially called the voters of Connecticut stupid and hinted that they don't care about the security of America. It's insulting at best. They simply think Ned Lamont will do a better job at it and not divert our resources into a war in Iraq that we can't win.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Most couldn't pick New Lamont out of a line -up - they voted the way they did as an anti-Bush statement and you have to know that. That's fine, it's theri vote, but let's not make a saviour out of Ned Lamont - he has one platform and one platform early. the fact that you would take Bin Ladin at his workd for anything , you don't find somehow an issue ? In WWII the propoganda machines were targeting at the same mentality -- Hitle convined Chamberlain ( and popular opinion also) that he was really an OK guy, and could care less what happened in Britain, as he was focused on the Sudentenland and returning germans to their homeland..etc etc... they bought it too, there is a reason why people like Bin Ladin are bad people, but those who believe their word for anything amaze me.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What's amazing to me is that this administration reminds us daily that 'the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms.' And with the next breath, they'll say that the actual exercise of those freedoms, like voting for the candidate of one's choice, somehow 'sends the wrong message to our enemies.' It gets more Orwellian every day.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Why is this so hard for the libs and the confused moderates? Cheney didn't say Lamont had no right to be elected, he said voting for Lamont was something that benefitted the terrorists. Cheney was dead on correct even if the left hates to hear it. Lets just take a look at it. Lamont is a guy who doesn't even think the war on terror is real... he is an ignorant dupe. He is the kind of guy in congress that will push the terrorist bill of rights and he will fight Bush on the NSA and the SWIFT programs, programs that stop terror. So yes, Lamont is a blessing to Al Quaida, Hezbollah and every other Islamic thug in the world. He helps their cause by being a McGovern appeaser. Sorry libs, you are who you are. Don't get all huffy when you are simply exposed for who you are. This is why Lieberman is going to win.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Oh, I am willing to bet those DL annual passes on the Lieberman - Appeaser, err, Lamont race in Novemeber. No takers of course, but the offer is on the table.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Cheney is a senile (or at least crotchety) old man. I don't really care what he says one way or the other.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Cheney's comments are pure cyncial GOP politics. And foolish. I don't see how anyone of any stripe can see it any other way. Suggesting that al qaeda will become emboldened by lieberman's defeat is beyond ridiculous. But it's ripped from the GOP `02 and `04 playbook - portray democrats as weak-kneed turncoats that are soft on terrorism. This only works with the dumbest of republicans - in other words, most of them. What cheney DOESN'T say is what's really emboldening the terrorists - the US led meltdown of the middle east. Even conservative republican congressmen now concede that the war is going badly, iraq is deteriorating, iran is gaining greater influence in regional matters, and israel and lebanon are busy with the business of wanton destruction of life and property. And cheney thinks these terrorists are tracking the democratic primary in connecticut. And some people believe him - no matter what he says. The facts are in - 60-something percent of american people oppose the war in iraq; 60-something percent oppose bush; and 60-something percent believe we should bring back at least some of the troops by year's end. Cheney's comments reflect the "last throes" of a desperate administration.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Cheney is the most qualified person to run the country when things get rough. If all hell breaks out and we are under attack who do you want to lead the fight? Lamont and his SF - Vermont - Conneticut group of moonbats or Cheney and his group of military commanders? Want to put it to a vote and see the landslide? America gets this. Well, most Americans get this, the rest don't matter. Stick to the Ben and Jerry ice cream stands libs.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda <<It gets more Orwellian every day.>> Orwell was right, just a few decades off in timing.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>This only works with the dumbest of republicans - in other words, most of them.<< >>Stick to the Ben and Jerry ice cream stands libs.<< Endless insults. Are these still being admin'd?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>the terrorist bill of rights<< This, I guess, is what your talk radio now calls the US Constitution?
Originally Posted By ecdc "Most couldn't pick New Lamont out of a line -up - they voted the way they did as an anti-Bush statement and you have to know that. That's fine, it's theri vote, but let's not make a saviour out of Ned Lamont - he has one platform and one platform early." You're misdirecting the issue. When did I ever make a "saviour" out of Ned Lamont? My post was about Cheney's need to insult the American voter and essentially tell them they're stupid and emboldening the terrorists by voting for Lamont. Care to comment on that finally? Instead, you misrepresent my position, which was clear, by saying I somehow like or believe bin Laden over Cheney. I don't like Dick Cheney, but bin Laden is of a whole different stripe. It's astounding that your partisan politics have led you down such a thorny road that I actually need to spell that out for you. My point in quoting bin Laden was to show that he's gone on record as saying he wants to kill Americans regardless of who's President. I took him at his word because I believe he's the kind of scum who wants to kill innocent people regardless. You somehow turn that into I follow bin Laden's word's over Cheney's. Apparently, you think he won't attack us if a Republican is in office. I think that's naive.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <My post was about Cheney's need to insult the American voter and essentially tell them they're stupid and emboldening the terrorists by voting for Lamont.> Isn't Lamont insulting the American voter by telling them that the Congress they voted for were big idiots for authorizing force against Iraq?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Isn't Lamont insulting the American voter by telling them that the Congress they voted for were big idiots for authorizing force against Iraq?' How do you figure? Did any of these members of Congress actually campaign on the theme of "a vote for me is a vote for war?" Right about now, I'd say a majority of the population would agree that voting to use force was idiocy.
Originally Posted By gadzuux One of the tactics I've seen around here lately is to criticize the opposition without actually standing up and being counted as an endorsement of their own side. So - do you agree with bush that al qaeda will become 'emboldened' as a result of lieberman's defeat in the democratic primary? Or do you just want to stand on the sidelines and snipe at people who take an opposing viewpoint?
