Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Daffy Duck Democrats

Back in April, Connecticut Democrat senatorial candidate Ned Lamont uttered the following:

We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they [the Iranians] don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. . . . I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate.

I don't know how one can work "diplomatically" and "aggressively" at the same time ("Nuke us! I said nuke us NOW, !#$%^&* it, or I swear to Allah we'll give you so many concessions that you'll choke on them!!!"). I don't know what incentives he thinks will entice the mullahs to abandon nuclear weapons, unless he's prepared to kill every Jew on the face of the planet on their behalf and convert the United States into a Muslim state with the Constitution replaced by sharia law. And I don't know where the man has been for the past few years, as the Bush Iran policy, to the extent that there is one, has followed Lamont's prescription to a "t," to the point where our window of opportunity to pre-empt a catastrophic war with Iran is now past.

Bill Kristol used the carrot motif to coin the term "Bugs Bunny Democrats." But I think that one of the other Warner Brothers characters for whom Bugs plays nemesis is more appropriate: Daffy Duck.

Jim Geraghty cites li'l Neddie himself to make a strong case for it:

Lamont, on Fox News Sunday:

LAMONT: No, I think on the contrary. What this election showed is that a lot of people in Connecticut think that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with our war on terror. It's been a terrible distraction.

Here you are talking about the failed terrorist plot today. It originated in Pakistan, goes through London, and here we have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

Ahem. From the London Times:

The investigation into the suspected Al-Qaeda leader in Britain and his UK associates was considered by Eliza Manningham-Buller, MI5’s director-general, to be the security service’s single most important line of inquiry. He is suspected of being behind two “pipelines” which saw potential terrorist recruits being sent for training at camps in Pakistan and to join the “holy war” in Iraq.

The Al-Qaeda leader — who cannot be named for legal reasons— acts as a suspected hub in a network of extremist groups. These include Kashmiri and north African groups based in this country. He is linked to a second suspect also in Britain who has “played a major role in facilitating support for the Iraq jihad”.

A third associate is an Iraqi who came to Britain in 2004 and worked on providing support for British extremists who wanted to travel to Iraq to fight the “holy war”.
MI5 said he acquired weapons in preparation for an unspecified attack in Britain. He was detained in January last year pending deportation to Iraq.

"Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror", other than the fact that the head of al-Qaeda in London and his henchmen are sending recruits to Iraq. But U.S. forces should not hunt al-Qaeda in Iraq, because... because... well... oilyellowcakebushliedpeoplediedwmdsplame.

More from Lamont on Fox News Sunday:

We also are much stronger when we work in concert with our allies, when we have shared intelligence. And I think that we've taken our eye off the ball there a little bit, and I think it's time to focus.....

How, exactly, can he argue that "we’ve taken our eye off the ball in sharing intelligence" three days after U.K., U.S., and Pakistani authorities worked together to take down a terror cell allegedly days away from launching an attack that could have killed more than 9/11?

Geraghty calls Lamont "Howard Dean v. 2.0" I call him John Kerry without the charisma and gravitas. Everything he's saying about the war is a complete rehash of the Boston Balker's incoherent attempts to sound...well, Deaniacal in the 2004 presidential campaign. Only it's even more nonsensical now because the second Bush Administration is already doing most, if not all, of what Kerry called for, with the results that we "neocons" feared - an emboldened and nuclearized Iran, "moderate" Muslim states coming to terms with Tehran, Israel straight-jacketed by the "international community" for its Islamist enemies to systematically kick to death, Iraq slowly sinking into the Iranian-subverted chaos that American inaction has allowed to metastasize - and no strong leadership from the global hegemon, but rather an obsequious deferral to the Turtle Bay crime syndicate.

But that still isn't enough for li'l Neddie. Or perhaps the fact that his side is inexorably getting what it wants (just not fast enough) can't penetrate the Land of Make-Believe Bushophobic libs inhabit. Either way, Lamont is far from being an outlier in Donkdom. Vice President Cheney, as is one of his favorite pasttimes, redundantly proved it last week.

Big Time evidently suggested that Lamont's primary victory might encourage "the al-Qaeda types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

Li'l Neddie's spluttering reply was positively Pavlovian:

"My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how can we turn this to partisan advantage. I find that offensive," Lamont said in an interview Sunday with The Associated Press. [emphasis added]

This from the guy the sole defining purpose of whose candidacy is opposition to the war against Islamic Fundamentalism - or, to quote the aforementioned J-Ger, "oilyellowcakebushliedpeople diedwmdsplame." I guess he's offended because he believes he's entitled to a monopoly on "politicizing" the war.

Well, he ain't the only one. The Massachusetts Manatee (for whom Lamont would serve as towel boy) was also claiming gimmick-infringment:

In an opinion piece in the Hartford Courant’s Sunday edition, Kennedy said Cheney went "too far” in his swipe against Lamont. He said the Vice President’s words were ugly and frightening.

Oh, really? As ugly as blaming 9/11 on Bush's first eight months in office instead of Bill Clinton's eight years? As ugly as calling the liberation of Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam"? As ugly as declaring that "Saddam Hussein's torture chambers (at Abu Ghraib) have re-opened under U.S. management"? As ugly as accusing the President of presiding over the same thing at Gitmo, including comparing U.S. servicepeople there unfavorably to "Nazis, communists, and Pol Pot"?

The only thing frightening about people like Ted Kennedy is that (1) they don't see their double-standard, or (2) even worse, they do, and (3) they want back into power over this country and its foreign policy.

Not all Dems tried to play martyr. Others trundled out the old "deflect and deceive" gambit:

Senate Democratic leaders on Friday accused Vice President Dick Cheney of playing politics with terrorism and contended that voters won't buy Republican arguments that the GOP is stronger on national security.

"They've run this play one too many times. The American people simply do not recognize any validity in what they're saying," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, said in a conference call with reporters....

Senator Chuck Schumer, D-NY, faulted Cheney and Senate Republicans for politicizing the issue.

"They shouldn't. We should all be uniting and be together at this point," said Schumer, the head of the Senate Democrats' campaign committee. "But if they're going to throw the political bombs on this issue, we are going to answer them loud and clear, and we believe we have the political high ground." [emphases added]
Parenthetically, have you gotten tired of the Dems' strategy of presuming to speak for the entire American people, particularly on this topic, when polls still show a majority of Americans do not trust the Democrats on national security? You'd think after nearly six years of doing so, and falling farther into the minority with each successive election cycle, that they might get tired of it themselves. If they were rational, that is. The rise of li'l Neddie Lamont pretty much settles that question.

Gotta give credit to Chucky for chutzpah, though; a Democrat in 2006 calling for "unity" on national security and foreign policy is rhetorical torque worthy of Adolph Ahmadinejad himself.

Speaking of whom, Mike Wallace's audience with the mullahgarchic troll has turned the Iranian frontman into a rival of Fidel Castro's for the slavish devotion of the American Left (via Dean Barnett):

Even before the translation could be heard, I felt more assured of his intelligence and comprehension than I've ever felt about Bush speaking in mangled English. He's a very savvy politician, to be sure.

~ ~ ~

He is smart and is also media savvy or surrounded by people that are, as shown by the wardrobe, the mannerisms and likely even the pitch and tone of his chosen translator.

~ ~ ~

He certainly has some of the same comments and questions of Bush that we do. He raised many good points.

~ ~ ~

I like the guy. Maybe not what one is supposed to say, but I've read quite a bit about him & he is very educated and personable. I take what I hear from the U.S. propaganda machines with less than a grain of salt. [emphases added]

So. The man who has repeatedly, openly, brazenly, and enthusiastically vowed to "wipe Israel off the map," and us as well, and is openly, brazenly, and enthusiastically building a nuclear arsenal for the task, and is repeatedly, openly, brazenly, and enthusiastically killing American soldiers in Iraq, and now has, with Israel's kneecapping by the UN, an engraved blank check from the "international community" to pursue all of the above, is much preferred by liberal Americans over their own president. And the best part is, Ahmadinejad, unlike the Soviets during the Cold War, doesn't have to bother concealing what he is and what he plans to do, because as these Kos-hack comments illustrate, such deception isn't necessary to bully the West into surrendering without any resistance, or at least remaining passive until, much like World War II, a major war (this time including the use of nuclear weapons) is unavoidable.

Dhimmis, in other words, don't need to be fooled, because they're endlessly and accomodatingly willing to fool themselves. Look what they really think about the continuing threat of Islamist terrorism, even as they're blaming it on President Bush. Look at what they really think about Israel, the Western democratic ally on the very front lines of this war.

Last Friday Victor Davis Hanson synopsized how the NeoBolsheviks who now rule the Democrat Party want to fight the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism:

1) To win the war, our soldiers must not die or kill.

2) To win the war, there must be no news of it.

3) To win the war, a liberal Democrat must wage it (like Ehud Olmert did Israel's war against Hezbollah).

4) To win the war, we must win over the Europeans by ensuring they can always earn a profit.

5) To win the war, we need to outsource the job to those who can fight it with impunity.

6) To win the war, it should be over in twenty-four hours — but at all cost no more than eight weeks.

It sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit (You know, back when that show was actually funny). But this is really the confused thicket of pipedreams and rank cynicism, all of it underlain by a frothing foundation of rabid Ameriphobic pacifism, that drives today's Democrat Party - an entity that could allow no more room for a staunch liberal patriot like Joe Lieberman.

Li'l Neddie Lamont is, indeed, emblematic of today's American Left. That just isn't the unmixed blessing the "nutroots" think it is.

In fact, it's positively daffy.