Lieberman Opens 10 Point Lead over Lamont
Joe Lieberman is once again running away with the Connecticut Senate race.
Senator Joseph Lieberman (I) has increased his margin over Democrat Ned Lamont by eight points. He now leads the antiwar candidate 50% to 40% (see crosstabs [$]). Thirty-nine percent (39%) are certain of their Lieberman vote, while 30% definitely expect to pull the lever for Lamont. GOP nominee Alan Schlesinger now attracts 6% of all voters.
It’s interesting that, despite continued bad news on whatwas presumed to be the defining issue in the contest both in Connecticut and nationally, the war in Iraq, and the weight of the Democratic party machine against him, Lieberman is nonetheless gaining steam.
Could it possibly be that a majority of voters in liberal Connecticut see running away in Iraq would hand AQ a huge victory, destabilize our relationship with regional allies and make us less safe? And since running away is Lamont’s “single issue candidacy”, I don’t find it surprising that he is losing.
Put Jane Hamsher on an immediate suicide watch.
This doesn’t surprise me at all because when you get right down to it, Lieberman’s about as decent a guy as politicians get (or does a good job of projecting that image, which is about the same). More importantly, he’s done a really good job for the state of Connecticut, and as he’s said himself, being free of a political party is actually very liberating – and probably refreshing to the voters.
On a completely unrelated note, I really think he should have based his 2004 presidential campaign on the slogan: “Give the terrorists the finger: put a Jew in the Oval Office.”
I totally would have voted for that. 🙂
Yeah, ’cause staying in Iraq isn’t already doing all those things 🙂
hand AQ a huge victory
Funny, AQ doesn’t appear to see it that way.
In a letter purportedly from a top al-Qaeda leader to the organization’s Iraqi branch, the author writes:
“Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.”
Is your world really that simple that you can take one sentance out of context and use that to ignore all the rest of reality?
Lets look at some other sentances in that letter.
Gee AQ seems to have changed their minds since Clinton was in the White house.
The main thing to bin Laden, however, was the horrified American reaction to the deaths. Within six months, the U.S. had withdrawn from Somalia. In interviews, bin Laden has said that his forces expected the Americans to be tough like the Soviets but instead found that they were “paper ti gers” who “after a few blows ran in defeat.”
AQ must not read the NYT, because they see that they are getting their butt kicked.
Yeah, getting Zaqarwi seems to have not been a planned for event by AQ.
Next get into the meat of his advice.
Seems they don’t think the way they have been waging the war is working out so well. Given that he goes onto say it is better to be liked by the people, maybe AQ has figured out that the way they are fighting in Iraq isn’t winning them friends in Iraq. Not also the internal dissension. Apparently the new commander doesn’t trust those under him.
It seems communication from AQ headquarters is a might difficult these days. They can’t send messengers to the Iraqi commander, but hope he can find some people who haven’t been exposed so they can carry messages. Fixing this breakdown in communications capability is even more important than preparing for some of the large scale operations.
Seems things are tough for AQ all over since the AQ headquarters and Iraq are both “occupied with vicious enemies”, “are also weak” and have “fractures”.
Seems AQ in Iraq hasn’t read the chapter on hearts and minds. Could this be part of why 15 tribes in Anabar joined the coallition side?
It would seem the guy from AQ HQ has seen these fights go off the rails following the Iraqi AQ tactics. Seeing another trainwreck coming, he is trying to warn him off. So even AQ doesn’t think AQ Iraq is on the path to victory.
Seems AQ thinks their entire movement is back on its heels.
Look at the weakness he describes and what he is warning the AQ Iraq to avoid. It would seem that the AQ in Iraq is a pretty flawed tool they are having to use because nothing better is available after the unplanned promotion.
Does that sound like advice you would give to someone on the cusp of victory or on the cusp of defeat.
Does this sound like an AQ that has the unquestioning support of the Iraqi people or one who badly needs to mend fences because they are losing?
So AQ HQ thinks that the Aq reputation is for ‘injustice, arrogance, conceit, haughtiness, superciliousness, excessive harshness and violence, impoliteness with people, especially those who disagree, and the like.’ No wonder they aren’t winning hearts and minds.
AQ sure seems to understand that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism. Defeat in Iraq is part of defeating AQ globally.
So now we finally get to the quote you bring up. Let’s read it in context.
So even though you are weak, please keep fighting. As they pointed out earlier, defeating AQ in Iraq means a defeat for AQ globally. So surprise surprise, they want to prolong the war.
Do you start to get at least an inkling about what it means to “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”? AQ recognizes they are losing in Iraq, know that loss will be a severe blow to them and desperately want to keep fighting. To turn that into “we should run away because they want to keep fighting” shows why the country doesn’t trust the left with national security.