http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/10/cheney-ct/

Cheney reaches new depths of lunacy as he outlines why Lieberman’s loss Tuesday actually helps the terrorists.

Is it me, or is his fear-mongering actually becoming transparent? Is he saying the democrat voters of Connecticut should be ashamed of themselves for helping the terrorists?

I guess the new mantra is “Vote for Bush policies or DIE.”

Read more at www.dcoffline.com

E

Posted at 11:03 pm by DC Offline

Posted by Johnny @ 08/13/2006 02:42 PM PDT
E,

I think it’s just you. The election of left-wing appeasers in Spain was perceived as a total victory for terrorism as political action. Lamont’s victory is attributed to a single issue, his anti-war stance, and that is, in a small way, a similar capitulation to terrorism as what the Spanish electorate did. However, Lieberman wins the general election regardless, so it is moot.

Posted by BP @ 08/13/2006 08:11 PM PDT
Johnny B…God bless you for saving me the trouble.

Posted by Hemonster @ 08/13/2006 11:59 PM PDT
I’m still struggling with “The election of left-wing appeasers in Spain was perceived as a total victory for terrorism as political action.”

Where outside of CNN/FOX/rest of the talking head/newsmedia was this “perceived”?

How have terrorists been “helped” by this “victory”?

Posted by BP @ 08/14/2006 04:00 PM PDT
God Bless you, Hemonster, (if that IS your REAL name) for not saving me the trouble:

What are you crazy?

Rubalcaba wouldn’t have been elected if the attack wouldn’t have happened, and this guy is a leftist appeaser of the highest order.

You honestly think having a socialist pacifist who wanted to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq instead of a huge ally to W who promised to continue to support hiim…didn’t help Al Qaeda?

Even if their help makes no difference practically, did it not help politically? …couldn’t that be considered a political victory? Now I’M struggling.

Posted by Eric (my real name) @ 08/14/2006 09:58 PM PDT
Still waiting for any evidence that Rubalcaba’s election ‘helped’ in ANY way – ANY terrorist cause.

You don’t even have to provide evidence. A simple allegation would suffice!

Of course he was elected because of the bombing. No one is denying that! And of course Leiberman was rejected by the Democratic primary voters because of his pro-war stance.

So what? Now one political viewpoint is viewed as collaboration??

My point – is that the only people that count this as a ‘victory for the terrorists’ are our own administration and the news media that hypes this nonsense.

Again, my question is: What real, tangible help has Al-Qaeda received directly from either Lamont’s or Rubalcaba’s victory? Either on the ground militarily, in the media in terms of favorable coverage, by anyone in terms of financial help?

Still awaiting your response.

Posted by BP @ 08/15/2006 05:08 PM PDT
You already got my response.

BTW…Hemonster, dude, I know who you are, man…relax…it was just a little reference to Get Smart. Sorry you didn’t catch it.

If your definition of helping the cause of terrorism by political action is confined to “real and tangible” and immediate, then you’re absolutely right, no terrorist has benefited at all.

We can talk past each other all day long if you like. I personally believe (and apparently so do others) that when a politician is elected that is “softer” on terrorism or more “appeasing” to terrorism or WHATEVER, that that is indeed a victory to those who would commit terrorist acts. Those who believe that those particular elected officials are right in being more “appeasing” or “softer” are not going to share that opinion with me…apparently including you.

Do I have any evidence that terrorists have benefited concretely from Rubalcaba’s election, no…not if you don’t think losing an international ally in an already precarious situation fighting terrorists in Iraq doesn’t have a cost associated with it. I don’t know any way to measure that, do you?

Do you have any evidence that his election has definitely NOT encouraged terrorists worldwide that they can influence elections.

The point is, you think Cheney is wrong and I think he’s right. There is no “evidence” to support either of us at this point. If I run into any I’ll let you know, though.

Or are you still waiting for my response.

Posted by BP @ 08/15/2006 06:24 PM PDT
And who the hell said anything about “collaboration”…that was WAY out of left field. Collaboration was neither stated nor insinuated in any of the above comments.
Cheney: Lieberman Loss ‘Disturbing’, helps Al Qaeda

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *