Republicans suggest Democrats are soft on terror, weak on national security, friends of Al-Q'aeda, undermining the president, yada, yada
Got that? OK! Now: what --- if anything --- does this have to do with the 'Terrorists' arrested in England?
By Winter Patriot on 8/10/2006, 1:42pm PT  

Guest blogged by Winter Patriot

The Republican Spin-And-Noise Machine has shifted into high gear since Tuesday's Democratic Senatorial Primary in Connecticut, where the moderately anti-war Ned Lamont defeated the rabidly pro-war and pro-Bush "Democrat", Joe Lieberman, in a very close race.

What does this mean? Has the Democratic party eaten itself? Or has it been torn in half? Is this a victory for the liberal bloggers? Or a defeat for the pro-Israeli lobby? Is it a repudiation of everything the Bush administration has ever done or said? Or maybe ... just maybe ... did the Democrats of Connecticut look at the two candidates and decide they liked one just a bit more than the other?

If you listened to the words coming out of Republican mouths lately, you'd never even imagine that the result of the primary could possibly have been a reflection of the wishes of the voters:

White House tears into Dems over Lieberman loss

Quoting White House Press Secretary Tony Snow:

Key leaders in the National Democratic Party have made it clear --- no, let me back up --- this is a defining moment, in some ways, for the Democratic Party. I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president. I would flip it. I think instead, it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party, they're going to come after you. And it is probably worth trying to trace through some of the implications of that position, because it is clearly going to be one of the central issues as we get ready for the election campaign this year, that is, the midterm elections.

First, let's think about Iraq. One of the positions is that we need to leave Iraq. We need to do it on a timetable, and we need to do it soon. It's worth walking through the consequences of that position.
...
[If we left Iraq, it] would create a power vacuum and encourage terrorists not only Iraq but throughout the region and throughout the world...
...
[I]t would create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East with the second-largest oil reserves in the world.
...
[I]t would inflict incredible damage on America's credibility.

Right. Let's walk through the consequences.

What has created a power vacuum in Iraq?

What has encouraged terrorists not only in Iraq but throughout the region and throughout the world?

What has created a failed state --- with a civil war raging --- in the heart of the Middle East?

What has inflicted incredible damage on America's security?

Is it not yet clear that all these things have already happened --- and that they were all caused by the same event?

This whole charade reminds me of the Aesop's fable Androcles and the Lion. Do you remember that one? The lion gets a thorn in his paw and he can't remove it by himself. The wound becomes infected and the infection begins to fester. The lion's paw gets more and more painful, swollen, bloody, hideous.

And what happens next? Does Androcles come along and say "We have to stay the course. We have to leave that thorn in your paw until the infection goes away and your paw is healthy again"? Does he say "We need to put more thorns in your paw! We need to bring some of our allies here and get them to put more thorns in your paw, too"?

Of course not! Androcles removes the thorn from the Lion's paw, and in the end this act of mercy --- and common sense --- saves Androcles' life.

It would only take a little common sense to realize that Iraq is the lion's paw and our troops are the thorn. But we won't be seeing any common sense from the Republicans anytime soon. No mercy either, unless I miss my guess.

Republican blitz tries to link nationwide Dems to Lieberman race

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has issued at least 10 press releases today, many asking whether particular Democrats—including Pennsylvania candidate Bob Casey, Arizona candidate Jim Pederson, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, and Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey—will "support fringe candidate Ned Lamont or the 2000 VP nominee Joe Lieberman."

Other Democrats, like Ohio's Sherrod Brown, are blasted for putting "far left politics on display in abandonment of Joe Lieberman."

"Fringe candidate"?? "Far left" politics?? They must be kidding!

They're not? Well then, they must be lying!!

What is Lamont's position on the War in Iraq? What is his position on the War in Afghanistan? What is his position on the War on Terror?

A true far-leftist would say that all these wars are illegitimate, that they are based on false-flag attacks and outright lies, that they were fabricated on flimsy and hopelessly transparent pretexts, and that their ultimate purpose is to further enrich the wealthiest segment of mankind --- at the expense of everyone else. And that's just for starters.

Is Lamont saying all of that? Is he saying any of it?

Of course not! Listen: There is no far left in American politics today, and there hasn't been one for a long time. But the Republican smear-meisters won't let that stop them:

Cheney characterizes 'disturbing' Lieberman loss as sign Democrats weak on terror

"The thing that's partly disturbing about [Lieberman's loss] is the fact that," Cheney told reporters from Jackson, Wyoming, "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."

Lieberman, Cheney went on to claim, had been "pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture" on terror.

Stay in the fight? Complete the task? Leave the thorns in the Lion's paw until the infection goes away?

Oh, wait! Guess what? We can't think about this anymore, even though it makes a lot of sense, because:

TERROR! TERROR!! TERROR!!!

Police probe flights terror plot

Homes and businesses across England are being searched and 24 people questioned after police say a plot to blow up planes from the UK to US was disrupted.

They say they are convinced they have the key players in custody, but a wider investigation is only just beginning.

Peter Clarke, the head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch, said the network involved was large and global.

And US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the plot was "in some respects suggestive of al-Qaeda".

"Large and global"? "Suggestive of al-Qaeda"? Of course it was! Isn't it always? How extremely convenient!

There's more from Chertoff here:

Terror Plot's Sophistication Suggests Al-Qaeda, Chertoff Says

The 21 terrorist suspects arrested in the U.K. overnight had a "well-advanced plan"' to detonate electronic devices or liquid explosives disguised as beverages or onboard U.S.-bound aircraft, a sophisticated plot suggestive of al-Qaeda, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said.

"We want to make sure there are no remaining threats out there,"' Chertoff said at a news conference in Washington.
...
"We believe that these arrests have significantly disrupted the threat,"' Chertoff said in a statement ahead of the briefing. "But we cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted."

So ... What do we do about it? Here's an idea: Force passengers to stand in line for four or five hours, and --- just to make sure they don't underestimate the severity of what has happened --- throw in some extreme security measures as well.

Baby milk under scrutiny as airport controls are tightened

The draconian security measures introduced at British airports in the wake of the foiled terrorist plot could be a taste of what is to come for the 21st century global traveller. For the first time ever in modern aviation history, the authorities imposed a ban on hand luggage being taken aboard.

The few items allowed - such as travel documents, wallets, baby food and nappies - must be carried in a transparent plastic bag.

Baby milk was being "tested" by staff at the security gate, while cleansing solution for contact lenses had to be placed in check-in luggage.

Well ... I'm glad that's settled. I sure wouldn't want to sit next to a passenger who actually had some cleansing solution for contact lenses!

Do I feel safer already? No!

I still have this nagging dread ... a horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach ... that says the worst is yet to come.

As usual, Kurt Nimmo sums it up quite nicely:

Fake Terror Obfuscates Lebanon and Iraq Failures

In standard fashion, in order to apply the correct spin from the outset, we are told this latest operation has "global dimensions," that is to say it will be billed as not only an "al-Qaeda" operation but other designated "global" enemies will be fingered as well.
...
In the coming hours and days, we can expect the corporate media, eager stenographers for the neocon plan, to connect the dots—blame will be affixed to Iran, Syria, and their "proxy," Hezbollah, through "al-Qaeda," now dedicated (or scripted) to help Hezbollah, not that the homegrown resistance group needs any help, especially from a CIA-ISI engineered terror group.

I couldn't have said it better myself.