A little context. Adam had this to say in light of Tuesday’s Democratic Senate Primary in Connecticut:
“Joe Lieberman believed in a strong national defense, and for that, he was purged from his party. It is a sobering moment.” — Ken Mehlman, Republican Party Chair. Whether you agree or disagree with Melhman’s assumption that supporting the war in Iraq equals favoring a strong national defense, he does a disservice to himself and to his party when he takes immature, gratuitous potshots at the outcome of an internal Democratic election. Does Mehlman not realize that anything he says is immediately dismissed by the public as pure partisan rhetoric? If nobody is going to be convinced by the arguments of a man whose job it is to be a spin-doctor, and merely uttering them will put partisan-fighting distaste in the mouths of voters (which they will attribute to Republicans), wouldn’t it behoove Mehlman to keep his mouth shut?
What Adam didn’t talk about was similar “if you’re against the war your for the terrorists” partisan hack, rhetorical BS that came from another wingnut nobody should listen to:
To “purge a man like Joe Lieberman” was “of concern, especially over the issue of Joe’s support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror. 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.”
Oh, right, that’s Vice President Cheney. A member of the Bush Administration and the second most powerful man in the world (First when he has his hands on the marionette strings). And what’s he doing? He’s essentially calling the Democratic voters of Connecticut traitors, those who would allow Al Qaeda to win. That’s one step farther than making the primary a one-issue race (which may have been partly true, but is generally unfair to do. I’m sure there are many voters turned off by Leiberman’s attention to national politics – running for VP in 2000 – instead of representing their interests). Does it behoove him to keep his mouth shut as well? Should the Vice President get away with being a partisan hack, and playing politics with results that are ultimately none of his business? Does statements like this, that are downplayed when made by Mehlman because he’s a partisan, damage the Veep’s credibility as a national leader?
What I find even more disturbing is that he made this statement Wednesday, probably with full knowledge of the ongoing and soon to culminate operation in Britain to apprehend and expose the terror cell plotting to blow up a bunch of Trans-Atlantic flights. So he had top secret knowledge, and he was using it to play the Democratic primary into what he knew would be a bump in the terror scale. That’s just plain dirty.