Have I got this right?

Lesse: The U.S. is attacked by terrorists. We, in turn, attack Afghanistan - the country harboring the terrorists. But, before we can actually take out the leaders, they flee to Pakistan, an ally. We get bored and turn our attention to Iraq. One reason put forward for attacking Iraq is that we'll be fighting terrorists on their own turf and keeping them from our shores. Yesterday, the U.K. announces arrests of alleged Pakistani terrorists plotting to bomb planes over the U.S. shores. We're still in Iraq. The policy proposed has clearly not worked in any method put forth before the Iraqi war. Somehow, this is the fault of those who want to phase out of Iraq and re-direct the money spent towards real protection of U.S. shores and fighting real terrorists?

Bullshit, plain and simple. Obviously, Bush policy reason number 437 as to why we went into Iraq has failed. But, he cannot admit defeat, so he blames Democrats and those who would elect the likes of Ned Lamont in Connecticut. Until now, I've not commented on Connecticut's senate race. Neither have I commented on Pennsylvania, New York, or any other such race outside of Washington. The reasons for this are simple: A) the whole media hype about bloggers taking it to Lieberman is not reality based (and any blogger who thinks that they had a hand in it needs to get their egos re-tuned) and B) it's not my business. I live in Washington and my votes go towards electing a senator from this state. Frankly, I'm appalled by the money that comes across state lines from people and companies that are not based in my state. If I had it my way, such money would be forbidden. Therefore, I don't generally feel the right to comment on what persons voters from other states elect. Sure, I have opinions, but I share them among friends and don't publish them elsewhere.

However, the statements from Dick Cheney regarding Lamont's win made this particular issue a national one. It is simple fear mongering. It's the same strategy that the administration used in the last election - let Dick make the worst, most outrageous comments and let Curious George make the more tempered remarks. To add insult to injury, the statements are just false. Lieberman, rather than demonstrate the fallacies inherent in Cheney's argument (namely that Lamont would yank resources from Iraq and apply them towards real protection and real terrorists), chose to take the administration's statements as talking points and attempt to lambaste Lamont. Does he think this is going to win him Democratic voters? Hell, that's one reason that Lamont won the primary! Let me be clear: Lamont won the primary not because he was against the Iraqi war, but rather because he didn't spend so much time sucking bile from Cheney's asshole. Lamont doesn't blindly throw support behind a President just because the country is in a state of terror. Lamont isn't kissing the Republican asses that blindly follow a leader of failed stewardship. The rejection of Lieberman was for these reasons. Democrats support candidates that they may disagree with about the war (Hilary Clinton's numbers are still high regardless of her position on the war). They do not support someone who appears to be a lapdog of the President on such issues and that's what Lieberman appeared to be and, from yesterday's attack, still appears to be.