The Meaning of Connecticut

Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)

Upon the revelation yesterday of a large-scale bombing plot in London, coming as it did two days after Ned Lamont’s defeat of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s Democratic primary, Lieberman connected the dots from Baghdad to London:

If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, in the New York Times, August 10, 2006

It didn’t sound too different from Vice President Cheney the day before:

The thing that’s partly disturbing about [the primary] is the fact that, [from] the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Remarks, August 9, 2006

Both of which lead us to ask: what are the ramifications of the Lamont/Lieberman contest, especially in light of London’s news? Was Lamont’s victory an isolated blog success or the tip of a very real iceberg? And if it is a movement, what might that movement look like, and who would lead it?

That’s just the first circle, and we’d like to expand the conversation from there.

For example: Some people in the Kerry camp still point to Bin Laden’s video note that arrived on the weekend before the 2004 election as that campaign’s death blow. Assuming we buy that line, how much longer does an attack (or a foiled plot, or an Al Qaeda missive) help the GOP? Can we imagine a time when it would actually hurt the party’s message? Is the answer to these questions a matter of how long the war on terror stretches into the future? With 60% of Americans against the war in Iraq, is the war on terror — this set of wars — unchanged from the mentality of March, 2003? And now that you can’t put toothpaste in your carry-on, is that disapproval bound to fall?

Put simply: Lieberman’s argument — and Cheney’s buttressing — was rejected by Democratic primary voters in Connecticut. Come Monday — come November, come 2008 — will it win the day in the country as a whole?

Hendrik Hertzberg

Political essayist, The New Yorker

John Nichols

Blogger, The Online Beat

Washington correspondent, The Nation

Associate editor, The Capital Times (Madison, WI)

Co-author, It’s the Media, Stupid

Matt Stoller

Political activist

Blogger, MyDD

Mary Katharine Ham

Managing editor, blogger, and columnist, Townhall.com

Related Content


  • jdyer

    “Put simply: Lieberman’s argument — and Cheney’s buttressing — was rejected by Democratic primary voters in Connecticut. Come Monday — come November, come 2008 — will it win the day in the country as a whole?”

    That would depend on whom you ask, wouldn’t it?

  • vatsyayan

    I would like to ask Dick Cheney, who would Jesus bomb? Just playing tough doesnot and would not solve the problem. There is a strength in defense and not just in offense. May be, this majority Christian country should learn something from Jesus; and should not take talk of defense as a sign of weakness that uncle Dick wants us to believe. Its a provocation tactics used by evil minded persons.

  • kel

    What the Lamont faction of the Democratic party is asking us to do (and not very well I might add) is to imagine a new stategic paradigm for American foreign policy. A paradigm that admits mistakes, recognizes Arab grievences, and believes in violence as a last, not first resort. My sons read 1984 recently for school and I reread some of it with them. One of the major enterprises of the state is the conduct of war. The current administration’l policy (and with Libeman’s cheerleading) is one of constant war. As long as war is considered esssential to government then any effort to challenge the dogma or bring it to a conclusion will be viewd as naive at best and treasonous at worse. The Republicans seem to have a way of winning (or stealing) elections on this platform and as long as they are sucessful, they will continue to do so. In challenging this dogma, the Democrats should articulate a rational worldview that could hardly be more risky than the current Hell we are pursuing

  • dayan

    What the democrats have done is signalled a move to the left that will cost them nationally. What this primary says to the nation, or at the very least how the Republicans will spin it, is that the Democrats are not just voicing concerns over the execution of the Iraq war, or over the need for this war at all, but are not serious in terms of dealing with the threat of Islamic extremism at all. They will be seen as weak on security and that will hurt them terribly. The fact is that the Lamont camp don’t have their own foreign policy plan. They exist solely as a group defined negatively against the current foreign policy. Lamont himself is a depthless upstart with no real idea of what he’s dealing with. My hope is that Lieberman wins as an independent, and that the Democrats back away from candidates like Lamont and try to repair the damage that has already been done before all chances of taking back the gov. from the Republicans are completely destroyed.

  • Old Nick

    “Was Lamont’s victory an isolated blog success or the tip of a very real iceberg?�

    Perhaps the ‘iceberg’ is the perennial—no, make that chronic—need for more than two choices of ‘political brand’ in American politics.

    The Democrats’ “big tent� tries to include the center, the left, and the center-left, but Lamont’s win shows plainly that the tent isn’t quite big enough to comfortably house everyone. This analysis is only bolstered by the projection that Lieberman might well win his Senate seat as an independent.

    The culprit responsible for our two-party poverty is the Constitution’s mandate of election of individuals (instead of by proportional representation), which by necessity polarizes the body politic along the Right/Left axis, because too much is at stake in every election for a nuanced political debate in between the poles.

    Politicians like Lieberman and Chuck Hagel are in truth centrists who must choose the political brand most electable in their home states. It hardly seems likely that they’re honestly comfortable with the extremists in their parties.

    They and millions of Americans would dearly appreciate an authentic Centrist party.

    What a pity that the third-party ‘iceberg’ always melts in the superheated partisan waters just before it can strike and sink the ship of state—piloted for too many years now by ideologically fanatical and intellectually incompetent pirate-captains. (Like the Bushes and their predecessor, the actor, ‘Dutch’ Rockne-Reagan.)

    To put a new spin on it: a constitutional modification allowing multiple parties via proportional representation isn’t seditious but patriotic—it would enfranchise those notorious millions of disillusioned potential voters who feel that the two-party system doesn’t ever offer any real choice.

  • 1st/14th

    Doesn’t this also overlook the fact that Lamont is going to get stomped this fall? http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

  • zeke

    Michael Barone speculates about a McCain-Lieberman ticket in 2008. Perhaps your guests will comment on this.

  • jdyer

    Yes, here is the link:

    “A McCain-Lieberman ticket?”

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/060810/a_mccainlieberm.htm

  • zeke

    Thanks jdyer. Just to be clear, the notion is that this would be a third party ticket with each candidate earlier renouncing aspirations for their own party’s nomination–an easier leap for Lieberman than for McCain no doubt.

  • rc21

    McCain is seen as a frontrunner in the GOP come 08. Lieberman has been all but kicked out of the Dem ocratic party.

    This shows some of the differences in the 2 parties. The GOP has plenty of room for moderates . The Dems have none. They keep drifting more to the left each year. I would love to see McCain run I supported him last time.

  • loki

    Let’s us not forget:George Bush is a Conneticut Yankee in Sam Houston’s Court!

  • ridiculousname

    I’d like to thank the good people of Connecticut for telling Joe Lieberman, and anyone else for that matter, to take this war and shove it. Let’s hope the rest of the country will follow suit come November. It seems unusual for legislators to be held accountable for their votes, but this one was so dumb that it begs to be examined. At least John Edwards has had the goodness to say he regrets it, and John Kerry has followed suit, though anybody with a newspaper could have seen in 2003 that the whole adventure was tragically silly from the start. Congressional seats should not be entitlements, so it’s nice to see the voice of the people being heard for once, though alas they needed to vote for yet another millionaire businessman to do it.

  • scribe5

    ridiculousname, you are just repeating what Micahel Moore said recently.

    http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/print.php?id=197

    He is wrong and so are you but have you got anything original to say?

    The people in Conn did not tell Joe anything, it’s only some Demos who voted against Joe and it wasn’t an overwhelming majority of Demos either. Joe lost by only a few percentage points.

    Let’s wait till November to see what the people of Conn think.

  • greenbrier

    Why has being against this ill-planned, botched multi-billion-dollar war become the main reason for tarring candidates “far left” or “extreme left-wing” or “nutty liberal” etc.? I don’t know all of Lamont’s positions, but he hardly strikes me as a far-left type. Howard Dean was a pretty middle-of-the-road Democrat as far as issues went, but because he spoke out against the war–saying many of the things that most Americans now acknowledge are true–he was portrayed as this lefty freak. Are all Americans–the majority at this point–who believe that this war was a mistake crazed lefties? This kind of thinking plays right into the hands of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney et al–keep the people afraid and they’ll move in whatever direction you want, just like a herd of sheep.

  • fiddlesticks

    greenbrier Says:

    August 14th, 2006 at 12:09 pm

    “Why has being against this ill-planned, botched multi-billion-dollar war become the main reason for tarring candidates “far leftâ€? or “extreme left-wingâ€? or “nutty liberalâ€? etc.?”

    Many of the most vocal opponents of the war are pretty “nutty,” don’t you think. People from Cindy Sheehan to Michael Moore have made comments that makes them seem a bit unhinged.

    It’s not being against the war which is the issue, but some of the people who are against it have made themselves the issue.

  • rc21

    I agree with fsticks being against the war doesnt make you a left wing wacko. The problem is that most of the people who are doing the organizing and starting the marches are. Code Pink, ANSWER and others are really just anarchist groups with socialist and/or communist mindsets. And now they seem to be aligning themselves with supporters of Hezbollah and Hammas. These groups are not just anti war they are anti american.

  • japhyryder

    I’m a CT resident and voted for Lamont, but most of the registered voters in CT are registered Independent and even the most fervent Republicans here don’t seem so comfortable with the lieberman-cheney line of arguement

  • greenbrier

    Oh, come on. You don’t think there are extremists on both sides? So Ann Coulter can describe John Murtha as being “the reason soldiers invented fragging” and that’s OK, but Cindy Sheehan is just a wingnut who’s dragging down the whole anti-war cause? I’d bet for most of us, the famous “I think this’ll be a matter of weeks, not months” comment from Cheney and the whole “we’ll be greeted with flowers” theme sound more lunatic than anything Cindy Sheehan has come up with and UNLIKE Cheney or Runsfeld, she has suffered directly as a result of this war.

    My point is–what issues make these guys “lefties” aside from their anti-war platform? If thinking this war was a bad idea and wanting to take a new approach is “moving to the left,” then it seems like a majority of Americans are moving that-a-way. I wouldn’t say myself that they’re necessarily moving left.

  • silvio.rabioso

    “Anti-American”: the charge we knew was coming. Cheney sets them up, and the public tees them off.

    But before I go any further, I must clear up some more sloppy thinking. No one would claim that Dick Cheney represents the center of his party (perhaps the fiscal center, as in the point through which all money flows) on any issue. So when Lieberman begins to sound like Cheney (see the two quotations at the top of the page), any claim that Lieberman is in ‘the center’ on an issue (the Iraq War, for instance) is logically untenable.

    Now, as ‘anti-American’ is linguistically nothing more than the negation of “American”, in order to define “anti-American” we must first agree upon a definition of ‘American.’ According to some (RC21, among others), US citizenship or a Social Security number are not sufficient to prove Americaness. Many US citizens, again according to RC21, qualify as ‘anti-American’. Does that mean that non-citizens who share RC21’s values are American? From his postings, I imagine that RC21 (and excuse me, but I am amplifying him to stand in for a larger segment of the population who would call a US citizen “anti-American”) values the so-called American dream, in which someone can advance and create a better life based upon his or her hard-work and dedication. Does that mean that immigrants who come to this country to pursue the ‘American dream’ are American? Are they more American than the members of Code Pink?

    Is Hemingway, one of the great 20th century American authors, not American because he went to help the Republican (Socialist) cause during the Spanish Civil War? Is Henry David Thoreau to be stricken from American literary, philosophical and political history because he was an expressed anarchist?

    Hopefully the American electorate will not stand for remarks of the kind made by Cheney and Lieberman. We are quickly becoming a war-weary nation, and the tactics of the status quo politicians become more and more transparent with every casualty.

  • scribe5

    japhyryder Says:

    “I’m a CT resident and voted for Lamont, but most of the registered voters in CT are registered Independent and even the most fervent Republicans here don’t seem so comfortable with the lieberman-cheney line of arguement.”

    Whereabout in Ct. do you live?

    Ryder, I used to live in Ct. and I have relatives who live in Windsor. The story they tell me is quite different from the one you posted. I am told that the Democratic vote wasn’t representative of the voters in general there.

  • japhyryder

    I live in avon and work in trumbull…I would agree that Lieberman stands a strong chance of winning in November. I’m simply stating that the people I’ve talked to, Republicans and Democrats both, aren’t so somfortable with putting Lamont and terrorists in the same box.

  • loki

    W aka Geroge W. Bush was born in New Have Connecticut. Can he carry his home state?

  • jdyer

    “Now, as ‘anti-American’ is linguistically nothing more than the negation of “Americanâ€?, in order to define “anti-Americanâ€? we must first agree upon a definition of ‘American.’ According to some (RC21, among others), US citizenship or a Social Security number are not sufficient to prove Americaness.”

    You are arguing like a European. The Franco-Swiss film director Godard is fond of claiming that there are no Americans and that America is not a legitimate country.

    There is a long anti-American tradition in Europe going back to the 18th century which has been written about especially in France.

    None of this proves that anti-Americanism is not a reality.

    You probably got led astray reading Hemingway who is not one of the great 20th century authors. There are at least a dozen wirters greater than he is and probably twice that many. The fact that he is very popular in Europe doesn’t make one of the great 20c American writers.

    Now you ask,

    “Is Hemingway, one of the great 20th century American authors, not American because he went to help the Republican (Socialist) cause during the Spanish Civil War?”

    This is a silly question since Hemingway if anything was an American macho chauvanist and I doubt that the endorsed socialism in any form. He himself would have fared no better than any other free thinking spirit in Cuba than did many of its writers who were persecuted by Castro.

    As for the Spanish civil war he was there as a writer and reporter who wrote a mediocre novel about the conflict. The great writer in English of the civil war in Spain was George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia which wrote about the betrayal of the Republican ideal by the Communists.

    “Is Henry David Thoreau to be stricken from American literary, philosophical and political history because he was an expressed anarchist?”

    Another silly question since Thoreau’s anarchism wasn’t the kind of political anarchism so popular in Europe. In many ways the man was what Melville would have called an “isolato.” He believed in the party of one.

    Today we are facing with Islamic Fascism a completely different type of enemy and Lieberman is one of the people trying to alert us to that fact.

    I am no Republican so it is not my intention to support (or attack) Bush or Chaney who did and are doing a lousy job in Iraq.

  • jdyer

    For those of you who have access to the New Republic web site blog “the Plank” there is a fascinating discussion going on about the Lieberman candidacy.

    Here is one post:

    “THE LOGIC OF LIEBERMAN’S CANDIDACY:

    If I had lived in Connecticut, I would certainly have voted for Ned Lamont. In his early and continued support for the Iraq war, Lieberman has shown abysmal judgment on the most important issue of the day. A single issue? So was the Cold War by that definition.

    But I don’t agree with Jon Chait’s argument that Lieberman’s third party candidacy is illogical. Third party campaigns are justified, it seems to me, when a candidate’s position is not represented by either of the major parties, but nevertheless enjoys significant popular support. By this standard, Jacob Javits didn’t pass the test when he ran as a Liberal in New York’s 1980 Senate race after being defeated in the primary. His positions were indistinguishable from Democrat Elizabeth Holtzman. Ralph Nader’s candidacy in 2000 was also an ego trip, even if he didn’t think so. But George Wallace in 1968 and Ross Perot in 1992 did pass the test. So did Lowell Weicker’s third party candidacy for Connecticut governor in 1990.

    Lieberman is a perfect example of a third party candidate. On the key issue of the day, he differs from his Democratic opponent, while he differs from the Republican on a host of domestic issues. I hope Lamont wins. But I don’t think Lieberman’s candidacy is illogical.

    –John B. Judis”

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=31445

  • jdyer

    You should get John Judis on the show.

  • http://pandachews.blogspot.com/ Paul Massari

    See… here’s my problem…

    Like many Democrats (although I don’t really consider myself a big fan of the party) I cheered when Leiberman lost. FINALLY, the voters were holding someone accountable for the fiasco in Iraq. I mean Jesus Christ, 40,000 Iraqi dead and counting. More than 2600 US servicemen and women dead. Nearly 20,000 more wounded or maimed. All for a low level civil war? It’s about time someone lost his/her job, don’t you think?

    But what’s frustrating about the whole thing is the way the discussion has been polarized. If you’re troubled by the war and angry at the bumbling, hubris, and misinformation of the politicians – Dems and GOP – who got us into this disaster, you’re a coward, a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer. And if you think the solutions is more complicated than catching the next plane out of Baghdad, you’re a shill for the right wing.

    Can we just cut out all the garbage about “freedom and democracy on the march,” and “Bush lied, thousands died,” and work together to figure out what now? The people who supported the war can’t find a way out until they admit they made a mistake – many of them actually. (For God’s sake, if McNamera can come clean on Vietnam,,,) And even if you think the administration is a bunch of war criminals, don’t we owe the Iraqis something more than just taking off and leaving them to a civil war and a public health catastrophe? How – if at all – can we help them now?

  • jdyer

    “Can we just cut out all the garbage about “freedom and democracy on the march,â€? and “Bush lied, thousands died,â€? and work together to figure out what now?”

    That’s it, the slogans on both sides have even become unbelievably boring.

    Lieberman was right to support the overthrow of Saddam and wrong not to criticise the way the war has been conducted. I also don’t believe that democracy will come to the Arab countries any time soon, though they could set up a more equitable political regime with a decentralized government and where power devolved to the different regions.

  • http://nowcough.blogspot.com barthjg

    Why is it that the Democrat’s former VP candidate is a casualty of the Bush administration’s mendacity? I can see Republicans laughing: the Dems are killing off one of their own, all the while the GOP happily stumbles along, riding the president’s polling numbers as Karl Rove rows the boat. Then again, Lieberman has contributed to the polarization of the Iraq War debate–he has so confused what is at stake he sounds as bush as Bush. And if Lieberman cannot get straight what matters when it comes to going to war..and going to a mislead-the-voters-and-Congess-war…then he should be drummed out of office. Is Lamont the guy I would chose to be the emblematic alternative? No. He is this year’s Howard Dean. To win, to really win the domestic war for the soul of what is right with this country requires more fully-formed, multi-issue Democrats with track records and vision.

  • jdyer

    “Then again, Lieberman has contributed to the polarization of the Iraq War debate–he has so confused what is at stake he sounds as bush as Bush.”

    I disagree that Lieberman contributed to the polarization of the iraq debate.

    As for his sounding like Bush, well, you must have a tin ear if you think that the two politicians sound alike.

  • fiddlesticks

    The Vietnam analogy is both predictable and boring.

    It is also false.

  • Sopper14

    I’m interested in hearing, from people who are dedicated to analyzing such things, how the CT vote is (or might) affect media and other Dems. Will more “journalists” be emboldened to ask real questions, to challenge dismissive or misleading comments such as those of Liberman/Cheney post primary? Will the submissive-urination Dems begin to squirm out from under their war-apologist rocks? Will the always anti-war Dems, like Feingold and Delahunt, get a little more attention?

    And adding London and probable other incidents to come . . .

    Will the media and the Dems start doing a better job of differentiating between the the current terrorist threat and the attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq?

    Just curious what others think . . .

  • fiddlesticks

    I’d like to hear from a pro Lieberman voter.

    This show is stocked against the Senator.

    I have been a member of WGBH for over ten years now and I may skip this year if I don’t start seeing some more balance in these shows.

  • Yark

    It is not just the war – - look again at the State of the Union address. If Lieberman had put on a dress he would have looked most natural on the table with his legs in the air, shouting “DO ME, Georgie-Poo”…

    ~ ~ The voters have HAD IT with Joe’s french kissing the Repubs while urinating on Democrats, not to mention democracy.

    ~ ~ If he had one whit of honesty he’d just declare himself a member of the Republicans.

    ~ ~ All those votes you say he voted with the Dems were mostly voted WITH THE REPUBS TOO.

    ~ ~ ~All we are Saying / is Give HONESTY a Chance !!!!!

    ~ ~ It aint Joe, and it aint Hillary neither !!!

  • nabobnico

    Fid sticks—skip your pledge and pay your cable bill instead. You’ll be a lot happier with hate talk cable tv.

  • wrenhunter

    Gosh, this guy just does not get it. Didn’t Chris say 20 minutes ago that we can’t just listen to wonks yakking? “Dems have a great message, I saw the poll, blah blah blah”. THEY DON’T. They may have A MESSAGE, but “accountability” (though I agree with it) is not enough.

    Most signs point to the continuing Bob Shrum-ification of November. The ONLY thing we have going for us is that voters are sick of the Prez and incumbents generally, and sick of the war. That MIGHT get us the House back this year — but then what do we do?

  • fiddlesticks

    Yark accusing Lieberman of being a whore may get you all excited, but it’s pretty childish.

    Come Novemeber he is going to send Ned back into the obscurity he so richly deserves.

  • fiddlesticks

    nabobnico I don’t do cable, sorry to dispel another one of your prejudices.

  • fiddlesticks

    If Dems take the house back this year, it’ll give the Reps another issue to run on in a couple of years.

  • Yark

    Bush made mistakes????

    ~ ~ ~ NO MISTAKE !!! He PLANNED to go into Iraq from since BEFORE HIS ELECTION !!!

    ~~~~The oil companies are making FABULOUS profits

    ~ ~ ~Halliburton is making FABULOUS profits

    ~ ~ Where do you think the MISSING CASH DOLLARS have gone??

    ~ ~ ~ And those ENDURING BASES are being built

    NO MISTAKES WERE MADE !!

    ~ ~ FUNDS squandered went into the appropriate pockets. Soldiers lives, who gives a fat care?? PROOF –> LOOK AT THE CUTS IN VET.ADMIN. FUNDING

  • fiddlesticks

    ” ~ NO MISTAKE !!! He PLANNED to go into Iraq from since BEFORE HIS ELECTION !!!

    ~~~~The oil companies are making FABULOUS profits’

    Yea, it’s all about money.

    He must have planned 911 too, then to give him cover for going into Iraq.

    I am not suprised that you are keyboard analyst and give away your wisdom for free. It’s no worth even a cent.

  • http://www.circles-salon.com allison

    f’sticks, Bush didn’t have to plan 9/11 to use it as an excuse to execute a plan he had devised long before.

  • nabobnico

    Let us be straight on this though. The war wasn’t planned, at least not beyond phase three, that is, the end of major hostilities. Regime change, however, was planned though, long before Bush’s election by the Project for the New American Century when it was founded in 1996 by William Kristol and (Bob?) Kagan. In 1998 they wrote to Clinton urging him in a letter to overthrow the Saddam regime. This is not heresay. It is fact. And when Bush took power, many from the PNAC joined him, including, but, shockingly not limited to, Cheney, Rumsfield, Khalizad, Armitage, Elliot Abrahms, Wolfowitch, Fukuyama and the disgraced I. Lewis Libby. Also, fiddydastickemup, and this may more may not be related to the war, the oil companies ARE making fabulous profits.

  • Hal Flantzer

    Lieberman was defeated, I believe, not only because of his stance on the Iraq war, but, unlike the Vietnam War, the former hasn’t changed one bit since Bush declared “victory.” That, plus being totally ignored by George Bush and what amounts to the directionless Democratic opposition, no doubt has frustrated the hell out of Ct. voters.

  • fiddlesticks

    “f’sticks, Bush didn’t have to plan 9/11 to use it as an excuse to execute a plan he had devised long before.”

    Allison the government has plans for deposing many potetial enemies. Most of these we don’t act on. They are there just in case we will need them. This is how governments work. I’d be suprised if France didn’t have contingent plans to attack Iran.

  • nabobnico

    I think you would be surprised.

  • rc21

    To silvio rabioso When I referred to certain anti war leftist groups as being antiamerican I was just using the dictionary as my resourse The first definitions are opposed to ,and against. That is what the main antiwar organization(ANSWER ) is

    You may not know much about them. They were the leading organizers for most of the anti war marches What they really are is a front group for the Stalinist workers world party. A group that advocates overthrowing the US govt and setting up a socialist/communist form of govt. They support N.Koreas regime. They supported Saddam saying he never did anything wrong. They supported Milosivich. They support communist Cuba They support all forms of communist dictatorships. If you dont believe me you can read a good article by David Corn you know him, hes a pretty highly regarded liberal journalist. He exposes this group in one of his essays. I wouldnt want you to read anything by a conservative journalist,as I doubt you would believe it.

    Maybe unamerican was not the right term to use. I guess I could substitute hate America or blame America first for these types. Either way if this is the way that the democratic party wants to go then they should just come out and say so.Stop hiding behind front groups that most reasonable democrats know nothing about. By the way I would also call groups that you probably consider far right (KKK ,Aryan Nation) people of that sort unamerican also. Sorry for the confusion.

  • Brendan

    I am not suprised that you are keyboard analyst and give away your wisdom for free. It’s no worth even a cent.

    Fiddlesticks, we’re all keyboard analysts here, you included. Go ahead and continue to disagree with the substance of anyone’s comments, but this stuff doesn’t really add to the conversation.

  • fiddlesticks

    Nabobnico: “I think you would be surprised.”

    Yes, I would be. Chirac said a months ago that France would react with nuclear bombs if it suffered a terrorist attack of major proportions.

    France has never been shy about using force to defend itself (often ineptly) no matter what the perception at the National Review.

  • rc21

    I’m not saying I necessarily agree with this,but someone summed up Frances response to Muslim terrorists and there mission as

    Deny–run–hide–surrender–collaborate.

  • greenbrier

    Does anyone honestly believe that members of the Stalinist Worker’s Party were the main drive behind the anti-Iraq-war movement, or that somehow everyone who marched is a Stalinist (or potential Stalinist) by association? Personally I’ve never heard of ANSWER, but this whole line of argument seems like weak and pointless name-calling to me. There are plenty of die-hard evangelists who believe that the whole Middle East crisis is part of the Second Coming, but that doesn’t mean that everyone in the pro-war camp is waiting for Jesus to appear through the clouds. It would be so refreshing if we could discuss these issues without the tired, desperate accusations of so-and-so is “anti-American” or “the Al Qaeda candidate…”

  • nabobnico

    I agree, Greenbrier. RC21 i think must be fereing to the WWP, which is not the Stalinist Workers Party. Unless she can prove and substantiate a little further, I would have to say that the SWP doesn’t exist, nor has ever existed. The WWP however was involved peripherly with ANSWER (Act Now to Stop the War and End Rascism), but in fact ANSWER is its own organization entirely. Most anti war protests have been organized by UFPJ (United for Peace and Justice), though the earlier ones were by MoveOn and NIMN(Not In My Name.) RC21′s taunts were simply that—taunts. I try to just ignore her as her attacks are for the most part unsubstantiated and hysterical. My favorite was her stating that “communists killed their countrymen!” But thats neither here nor there.

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    The meaning of CT?

    If it was a referendum on Bush then he just got 48% . . . . in Democratic Primary!!!

  • rc21

    ANSWER was the main organizer behind the big march that took place in Washington . Answer and SWP are essentially one in the same. Most of there members belong to both groups. They share the same office space. The reason they like to hide behind ANSWER is obvious they would attract to much negative publicity if it was known that they were a communist/socialist group intent on changing our form of govt. I never said all anti war people were of this ilk and I never said all dems were either. What I said was that the party was drifting further left mainly due to the increased influence of groups like ANSWER.

    Neither nabobnico or greenbrier seem to have much informaition on this group so Your comments dont bother me at all. It would be nice if you tried to learn a bit more about them before saying SWP doesnt exist and that ANSWER is a totally seperate group. The facts show different. Also to nabobnico not sure what you were refering to when I said” communists killed there countymen”

    That could refer to many countries Russia, N.vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, China, take your pick thats what they do best no news flash there.

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    greenbrier asks “Why has being against this ill-planned, botched multi-billion-dollar war become the main reason for tarring candidates “far leftâ€? or “extreme left-wingâ€? or “nutty liberalâ€? etc.?”

    I beleive that the following remarks answer your question pretty well.

    These are portions of remarks by Lt Col Randal C White Jr. Commanding Officer 2nd Battalion 58th Infantry to the graduating class of the Infantry School in Ft Benning, GA.

    “Men, don’t ever think, for one minute, that the kids running around on some university campus, protesting complaining or whining about this that or the other, have anything on you. You are privileged to have the one thing that they all covet. You will know, you will have facts about goings on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, the Philippines, Balkans and many other places.

    Your head will not be full of empty theories like those who know very little because they lack the intestinal fortitude to commit to anything that requires personal risk. I am speaking of the snide arrogant sort who spend the day blaming America for every wrong in the world before going home to sleep at night under the blanket of freedom provided by better men. Better men like you.

    (WD – This is the part I like because I think that the Lt Col is now talking directly, unambiguously and most confidently to Chris Lydon and people like him. I wonder if Chris might look at these comments and use them constructively to work on his “intentionsâ€?? http://www.radioopensource.org/be-a-source/open-source-chris-lydon-explains/ )

    Don’t let the pessimistic television talking heads, high brow newspaper writers, Hollywood idiots or any other faction of the blame America first crowd get you down. I am speaking here of the biscotti, latte crowd. They are sitting in the background shadows men and they will always be on the periphery of any endeavor that requires selfless service or loyalty. They are not worthy of your concern.

    And the truth be told, in the pit of their cowardly hearts they wish that they cold be just like you. The intestinal fortitude that is a part of your fabric is something that they covet but will never know.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/15/lt-col-randolph-c-white-a-great-american/

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    If the transcrpt of those words pisses you off / makes you uncomfortable I wouldn’t suggest that you click on the site and see the actual video. Because if you do, you will see African American military officer with 17 years of experience talking to a group of military men who have ALL volunteered to serve at a time when they most likely serve in Iraq full of an Army where well over half of everyone serving have either volunteered or reenlisted since the war began.

    This is a real person with crediblity talking to a group of other individuals who after 1 day in Iraq will have more credibility when talking about what is going on there than all of the Staff of OS and everyone that writes on this blog.

    And what I find interesting is how he, his words and this video stand in stark contrast to the idiotic people, words and videos of the people who supported Lamont. Just witness the video of the victory speach by Lamont with the grinning goons Sharpton and Jackson standing next to him.

  • rc21

    Amen Winston. The thing is I dont believe your unamerican if you dont support the war. And I dont think I ever said so. What I said or attempted to say was Anti war rallies were first organized by far left communist/socialist groups spearheaded by ANSWER which is just a front for SWP which has since morphed into the WWP. You also have code pink,

    and several other groups who go by very innocent sounding names.The hard reality is these groups are virulently opposed to America. They promote revolution,and there goal is to turn the US into a socialist/communist state. They support every communist dictatorship that has ever existed. These groups are now firmly entrenched in the democratic party.

    How any American could be part of these groups is beyond me. My guess is many people just dont investigate who the leadership of these groups are and what there real goals are. Its fine to be against the war its another to be against this nation. I loved your post you hit the nail on the head. As a veteran who has served in the middle east(not during this war) I feel I have a little credibility although im sure its not as much as our esteemed posters.

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    Rc12 – I think that anyone who reads that transcript / listens to the video and then beleives that it questions their “Americaness” is reflecting thier lack of self confidence in thier own feelings towards America.

  • http://studio-nelson.com plnelson

    After 9/11 I was still able to carry a bottle of water onto an airplane. Last week, when I flew to North Carolina from Boston, we were no longer able to do so. If I try to fly between Boston and the UK right now I’m even MORE restricted in what I can bring aboard.

    This does not suggest to me that we’re winning the “war on terror”.

    A study published a few days ago in the UK shows support for terrorism in the Muslim community there has INCREASED, especially among women and college students.

    Meanwhile Iraq is either on the verge of civil war, or already in one, depending on whom you ask. None of this suggests that the Bush/Blair team has anything resembling a clue how to proceed. Both Blair and Bush are in their last terms and there is every indication that when they leave office the terrorists and Islamofascists will be stronger than ever!

    It’s hard to imagine how the GOP can spin this into a reason why they should remain in charge.

  • http://studio-nelson.com plnelson

    “These are portions of remarks by Lt Col Randal C White Jr. Commanding Officer 2nd Battalion 58th Infantry to the graduating class of the Infantry School in Ft Benning, GA” . . .

    But Lt Col White’s comments are just flowery rhetoric. What matters is the hard facts. Killed, wounded, money, time, etc. There is no objective reason to think that the situation in Iraq is heading toward resolution. The number of civilians killed in sectarian violence is going UP.

    And NOTHING that has happened – not the civilian casualties, the US casualties, the number of troops we have there, the financial cost, or anything else was predicted by the Administration or its neocon supporters when the war was first proposed, which does nothing for their credibility. So why should we believe them now?

  • http://studio-nelson.com plnelson

    “I’d be suprised if France didn’t have contingent plans to attack Iran.”

    I would.

    As we saw this morning in France’s announcement that they were only committing 200 troops to Lebanon, instead of the thousands actually needed, and as we’ve seen in their past refusal to address the Darfur crisis – so as not to offend the Sudanese government with whom they have close commercial ties – France has about as much backbone as an earthworm.

    The French have a penchant for meaningless gestures. In May I was in Paris for a writing workshop and I noticed that for an hour in the morning there were French paratroopers stationed outside the Brentano’s (a big American bookstore on Avenue de l’Opera) . They would stay for an hour and then speed off in their military vehicles.

    At lunch one day I asked the staff there and they said that it was a show of security to protect the store. The soldiers were only there for an hour a day, and at the time I was talking to the staff I was wearing a backpack filled with books and a laptop PC, big enough that if it was Semtex would have taken out the whole building.

    That’s France for you.

  • rc21

    To pLnelson ; your points are well taken. I dont think anyone would suggest that Iraq has gone well. I stated on earlier posts that the administration had underestimated the the problems that could arise after saddams removal.

    On the other hand much of the country does not have the violence that we are seeing played out in the media. I talked recently to a LT Col who just came back from Iraq. He felt that much good had been done. His feeling was that the media was not giving the full picture of Iraq.

    One thing that we are seeing now is Iraqis killing Iraqis. If they would stop there senseless violence,the US could pack up and leave and I think everyone would be happy. But your right I dont think the administration predicted or planned for the violence that we see now. I think there thinking was almost along the lines of OK we took care of the bully now everyone can come out and play and we will all have fun building a brand new country. It sounds great but things just arn’t that easy.

    If you look back at your comments about the study in the UK which finds the support for terrorism to be rising amongst women and college students. This is no suprise. The universities in the UK are even more anti semetic and anti american than in the US. Many of these students get there ideas from middle east studies programs that are taught at these schools.

    As to Lt Col White sorry I disagree I think we need more like him. Yes of course some of his comments are a bit over the top,but not by much. You must remember that the people he seems to have so much disdain for have always looked down upon the military and there sacrifices. To the rich college kids who protest, and the liberal media, and the latte drinking academic elites the military is made up of stupid rednecks and poor ignorant minorities. These people have little respect and even less appreciation for people like Lt Col White.

    I think Lt Col White is just calling it like he sees it. His speech though somewhat harsh is unfortunately quite accurate.

    As to your post on France I couldnt agree more. As they say with friends like these who needs enemies.

  • http://studio-nelson.com plnelson

    “I talked recently to a LT Col who just came back from Iraq. He felt that much good had been done. His feeling was that the media was not giving the full picture of Iraq.”

    . . .

    “I think Lt Col White is just calling it like he sees it. ”

    ———-

    The fact that he may believe is what he’s doing, and the fact that he’s “calling it like he sees it” doesn’t really add anything to the debate. Of course he’s going to believe in his mission. It’s human nature that if you make a huge personal or professional committment to somehing you will be inclined to justify it emotionally.

    But the BOTTOM LINE is the hard cold facts, the numbers, the data. They do not paint a picture of success, or eventual success.

    Also, what is the significance of the fact that the violence is only happening in certain places and not others? During the American Civil War there were plenty of places where, at any given time, there was no violence, and plenty of places where at NO POINT was there violence. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a war.

    The costs of the war, in US lives, in Iraqi lives, in our nation’s image abroad, and in our tax dollars, are REAL and CONCRETE. The risks of emboldening the bad guys if we leave are speculative. I’m an engineer with a science background so, to me, real and concrete beat speculative any day.

    I have a nephew in the Army who’s actually HOPING to go to Iraq. Obviously we don’t want him to go because we’re afarid he’ll be killed or wounded. I think at this point, the onus is on the Administration to PROVE to us that continuing to stay in Iraq is a good idea if they are going to ask us to pay for it with real and concrete tax dollars, and wih the blood of our relatives.

  • rc21

    No arguments from me on your points other than this. What the soldiers believe is real and concrete. It is much more concrete then numbers and data. If the men and women who are there every day laying there life on the line believe what they are doing is the right thing. I think I owe them a small bit of trust and I can defer to there opinion. These are not stupid people .

    My personal feelings are probably similar to yours. Iraq appears to be a mistake. The thing is I’m not there so I really dont know. I do know that we got our butts kicked at the begining of ww2 also. Things were much worse. We lost more men in 1 day then the whole of this war so far. so things can change.

    I also know that North Vietnam said that the anti war protesters played a great part in there victory. They knew if they could cause dissension and turn people against the war they would have a chance to win. They did on both accounts. Yet they never actually beat us in any battle. Even Tet was a dissaster. We beat them back at every point of attack. Yet the media made it sound as if we lost and before you could say Walter Cronkite the NVA were using these reports as morale boosters for its troops and propaganda for the country.

    The war was pretty much lost right there.Not on the battle field but on the TV screen.

    I would rather us not be in Iraq but i’m going to rely on the generals.not some reporter with an agenda or an academic who has never worked a day in his life outside a college campus. And I sure as hell am not going to trust some rich college kid that thinks he’s back in 1968 playing abbie Hoffman. when the generals say its time to get out that will be good enough for me. Hopefully G.B. will listen to them. Your nephew is a man Respect him and his decision. You may not believe in the war,thats fine you are not the one who is going. My friends son is on his way over now we pray he makes it back. He thought things through before he joined. In the end he felt the need to serve his country was more important than just sitting back and leading an easy life. He thinks that if other Americans are willing to sacrifice for the safety of the country than he had better do his part also. What was his father going to say.” Your better than them you dont need to serve”.

    So he is gone and we will count the day’s . It is a fine line we walk do we support or not support the war .Do we support or not support the troops. We all have to make our own decisions. Sometimes there is no right answer

  • http://studio-nelson.com plnelson

    “What the soldiers believe is real and concrete. It is much more concrete then numbers and data.”

    This is an astoundingly weird statement.

    Personal subjective belief is more concrete that hard data?

    If you are making a huge personal commitment, or assuming huge personal risks, it is human nature to believe in what you’re doing. And if you are doing so in an environment where your leaders are reinforcing that message, and especially under circumstances where a military esprit de corps discourages open dissent very few people are likely to outwardly express disagreement with them so they will postly hear a positive message.

    All of us fall victim to this. Last weekend I was visiting my Army nephew and my niece, whose boyfriend is Special Forces and recently returned from Iraq, and I did not mention my dissent with the war in our conversation because I didn’t want to undermine their morale. The last thing you want to do is send your personal soldier into a war telling him you don’t believe in what he’s doing. I’ve talked to other military relatives who say they do the same thing.

    “Your nephew is a man Respect him and his decision.”

    He’s 19 years old. He doesn’t have enough perspective and hasn’t studied enough history to be appropriately skeptical of Commanders in Chiefs.

    The ordinary soldiers on the ground are the least objective sources of information on this. Subjectivity is never as good as objective data. Subjectively the world is flat. Subjectively there are plenty of drugs that people swear up and down helped them, but objective medical tests prove work no better than a placebo.

    “I would rather us not be in Iraq but i’m going to rely on the generals.”

    Don’t you find it interesting how many generals, once they retire or return from tours of duty there, suddenly become a lot more critical of the effort?

    Anyway, I’m not relying on “reporters with an agenda” either. Just the facts, ma’am: Number of people killed or injured, billions of dollars spent, oil produced (or not produced), electricity produced (or not produced), sectarian attacks, etc. Those are real and concrete. The Administration has every opportunity to produce the real and concrete benefits to justify those costs, but they don’t, because, frankly, they can’t.

    not some reporter with an agenda or an academic who has never worked a day in his life outside a college campus.

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    plnelson – What Lt Col White is saying in this speach is that people like you simply don’t know what the facts are and so sound silly when you comment.

    Jsut like the guy in another thread that tried to argue idiotically the the US lost the ground war in Vietnam.

    plnelson says “Don’t you find it interesting how many generals, once they retire or return from tours of duty there, suddenly become a lot more critical of the effort?

    What is really telling is that the vast majority of those generals who are critical alos say that support Bush and would have fought the war even knowing what they know now.

    That is the false dichotomy that the Dems / run away crowd don’t understand. Being critical of the war doesn’t necessarliy mena that you oppose it. The VAST majority of my friends still on active duty in the military are critical of specifics about the war yet support it.

    And I love your claims about “objective facts” and a great example is Marx. He and his methods of politcal economics are still studied because in most all limited situations they are usefull in performing analysis’ yet when placed together in total they are, of course, garbage. Emperically, they are proven to give worthless solutions.

    So, taking a limited set of what you call “objective” facts and trying to come up with an answer is jsut as worthless as Marx’s.

    Let me let the LT Col tell you what your “facts” are worth – and guess what, he isn’t an idiot who thinks that we lost the ground war in Vietnam.

    “Men, don’t ever think, for one minute, that the kids running around on some university campus, protesting complaining or whining about this that or the other, have anything on you. You are privileged to have the one thing that they all covet. You will know, you will have facts about goings on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, the Philippines, Balkans and many other places.”

    Hey plnelson – I am SURE that he is talking about you here!

  • http://studio-nelson.com plnelson

    “So, taking a limited set of what you call “objectiveâ€? facts and trying to come up with an answer is jsut as worthless as Marx’s.”

    Since the Administration predicated their whole invasion on stopping the deaths of civilians and restoring Iraq as a siocially and economically funtioning society, I think the facts I cited are the exactly relevant ones.

    As I said above, if you think you can cite objective reasons to think this thing is working and that if we stay the course it will soon start to get better, feel free to do so.

    As I said, we are being asked to pay for this in objectively real lives and money, so the Administration is obligated to justify it with objectively real data showing some light at the end of the tunnel.

  • http://studio-nelson.com plnelson

    “You will know, you will have facts about goings on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, the Philippines, Balkans and many other places.â€?

    Again, this is just empty rhetoric if he doesn’t back up those slogans with hard data.

    The bottom line is that this military that was supposedly in grasp of th “facts” FAILED to predict this quagmire. NO ONE in the military publically indicated at the beginning of the invasion that years later we’d still be stuck in a mess like the one we have now, trying to keep order in a broken, violent, anarchic society teetering on the verge of civil war (if not already in one).

    But **I** predicted it, very publically, all over the ‘Net. So let’s compare track records before we talk about who has a better grasp of the facts.

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    plnelson – Once again, your eloquent display of silly CW is less than impressive. Maybe the reason why no one of any intelligence listened to your predicting this all over the net was that your reasoning was a silly and your grasp of facts as sloppy then as now.

    Why don’t you ridiculously argue, once again, about how the US lost the ground war in Vietnam while you also try to explain why you think that this is a quagmire? You know why you won’t? Because you would look as stupid in the second argument as you did while making the first.

    That is what LT Col White was talking about when he referred to YOU, I say this again YOU as the one with a “head . . . full of empty theories�

    You write a lot but say little.

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    Over 1 million people died in the chaos and violence in the first 5 years after India after the “peacefull” revolution of Ghandi. Now, it is hte largest and most stable democracies in the world.

    Germany didn’t have it’s first democratic election until almost 5 years after the end of WWII – Iaq had 3 in less than 3 years. These facts are well known by the US military that made them possible.

    S Korea was a military dictatorship until 1988. Now it’s the world’s 10th largest economies with a society that most of Asia wishes that they had.

    But a genious like you would have argued, during all of these periods of thier history, that it was a quagmire, that the resources and loss of life had to be justified etc etc.

    You are who the Lt Col was talking about and he didn’t have to list all of the facts because he, and many others know them.

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    plnelson says “So let’s compare track records before we talk about who has a better grasp of the facts.”

    You are self paraody.

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    plnelson – I bet you predicted this as well?

    “Military Stryker vehicles saturating Baghdad’s most dangerous neighborhoods have been credited with what Iraqi authorities say is a 30 percent drop in violence in the city since the deployment of 5,000 additional U.S. troops to the region,” ABC News reports from the Iraqi capital:

    While U.S. figures show a 22 percent drop in violence, either way, its good news for the troops.

    “It’s been great. We get a lot of smiles and waves,” said Lt. Patrick Paterson of the 114th Cavalry.

    One of the most dramatic changes has occurred in the Dora neighborhood. In July up to 20 people were killed in the area every day. As part of this new military effort, U.S. and Iraqi troops have been searching thousands of buildings in an effort to stop car bombs. . . .

    And there are signs it’s working. During 14 days of patrols in Dora, there has been just one killing.

    We look forward to hearing Rep. John Murtha, the Democrats’ leading military strategist, explain how this could be better done from Okinawa.

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2344042

    WSD – And I bet Congressman Murtha will call the world renowned miltiary strategist, hell all-around strategist and thinker, plnelson to testify.

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    Plnelson – more facts for you with links to the actual data so you could actaully learn something. Maybe this is what the Lt Col was talking about when he said “ou will know, you will have facts about goings on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti, the Philippines, Balkans and many other places.”

    Here are the facts that these guys will know

    “US military fatalities are down in the first 7 months of 2006 (average of 57 per month) compared to last 7 months of 2005 (average of 73 per month). This is easily confirmed by going here (see link on blog below)”

    “The number of US fatalities from IEDs is down in the first 7 months of 2006 (average of 32 per month) compared to last 7 months of 2005 (average of 42 per month), this despite the fact that more IEDs are being placed (incompetently, perhaps). This is easily confirmed by going here (see link on blog below)”

    “Iraqi military and police casualties are down in the first 7 months of 2006 (average of 177 per month) compared to last 7 months of 2005 (average of 243 per month). Again, you can confirm this yourself by going here (see link on blog below)”

    “The number of US wounded is down in the first 7 months of 2006 (average of 425 per month) compared to last 7 months of 2005 (average of 499 per month). This is easily confirmed by going here (see link on blog below)”

    ” Back Talk adds:

    I am surprised that the New York Times (WD – and plnelson) cannot even be trusted to consult readily available data that can be easily examined to evaluate their judgment of the strength of the insurgency.

    Ouch!… and yet, so true!”

    WD – Back to you mr plnelson.

    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/honest-look-at-security-situation-in.html

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    Hey plnelson – I know that you are probably not reading this thread much, if at all any more, but don’t worry, I am placing these post here so the next time you wish to dazzle everyone with your knowledge of this subject I can link to these. I also think that since Chris bascially beleives the same thing that you do I can use this to “bracket” his editorializing on hte show.

    Anyway did your predictions “all over the web” before the war include this?

    “Young black males have a greater chance of being murdered in Philadelphia than a US soldier has of getting killed in the Iraq!

    From the Washington Post:

    The death rate for African American men ages 20 to 34 in Philadelphia was 4.37 per 1,000 in 2002, 11 percent higher than among troops in Iraq. Slightly more than half the Philadelphia deaths were homicides.

    Murtha (WD – or plnelson or Chirs) has yet to call for a Cut and Run from Philly.”

    plnelson – maybe this is what the Lt Col was talking about when he said that these soldiers were have first hand knowledge of while individuals like you would reamain ignorant of?

  • http://n/a winston_dodson

    oops sorry, my future posts would be worth much wothout at link

    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/philadelphia-quagmire-story.html

  • http://studio-nelson.com plnelson

    “Hey plnelson . . .

    Anyway did your predictions “all over the web� before the war include this?

    “Young black males have a greater chance of being murdered in Philadelphia than a US soldier has of getting killed in the Iraq!”

    But that has no relevance to Iraq

    Philadelphia is part of the US so we have an obligation to endure whatever costs are associated with straightening it out. We are, as it were, stuck with Philadelphia. We are not stuck with Iraq. We gave the Iraqi people the opportunity (at HUGE costs to ourselves) to have a peaceful, prosperous democracy – but they would clearly rather blow each other up and we should leave them to do so in peace.

    I would also suggest that if we put ANYTHING CLOSE to the resources we’ve put into Iraq into Philadelphia we would have cleaned up that place long ago.

    You comments are a total nonsequitur. The bottom line is this: Bush and Co. told us what we were getting into before the invasion and they lied. They have no credible plan to deal with this. This car is a lemon sold to us by a lying car salesman and we should dump it by the side of the road.