We're not finished with Cheney, yet.
Cheney had this to say yesterday - read it, then let's discuss:
The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, 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 in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that's becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict [who said that?] and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't -- we can't be. So we have to be actively engaged not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but on a global basis [again, who said we shouldn't be engaged?] if we're going to succeed in prevailing in this long-term conflict.First off, Cheney is simply repeating the same GOP talking points, packaged with a few transitional words.
So it's an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy [again, who said that?].
1. Democrats enable Osama, and/or Osama likes Democrats.
2. Democrats oppose any war on terror, and/or Democrats want America to hide and never fight back.
More proof? Cheney even brings up the "pre-Sept. 11 mindset" canard/talking point.
But clearly within the Democratic Party, it would appear to be that there are deep divisions. I think there's a significant body of opinion that wants to go back -- I guess the way I would describe it is sort of the pre-9/11 mind set, in terms of how we deal with the world we live in.Note how Cheney is saying absolutely nothing, giving no proof whatsoever for any of his assertions, but still doing a damn good job of just making stuff up and hoping it sticks to the Dems (and with the help of an uncritical media, it may). Who said Lieberman lost simply because he thought we needed to fight the war on terror? That's simply untrue. (Then again, Cheney is the guy who says Mohammad Atta met with the Iraqis at their embassy in the Czech Republica, even though he knew it wasn't true - then he denied having said it, even though he said it on live TV.) And who said that those of us who opposed Lieberman want to retreat within our national borders? Uh, pretty much no one. But again, we're not dealing with facts here. The GOP never deals with facts. They simply make enemies, and facts, up out of thin air. And they've been so succesful to date, it's no wonder they keep going.
Note what's really going on here. Cheney talks about how it somehow enables Al Qaeda to see the Democratic party "reject ones of its own." Uh, Mr. Vice President, those are called elections. We hold them every two years, four years and six years with the express purpose of deciding whether to accept or reject "our own."
But Cheney knows that, and this is his and the Republicans' greatest fear. That Lieberman's loss is a sign that the electorate is getting ready to "reject its own" - i.e., the Republicans currently in power and those who enable them. Cheney isn't sending a message to the Democrats, he's sending it to his own Republican voters. He's telling them that they enable Osama if they dare vote against a Republican. One simply doesn't voice disapproval of Republicans in power, no matter how incompetent, and remain a patriotic American in Bushcheneyland.
