Joe & Ned Musical Chairs

HARTFORD, Conn., Aug. 8 -- In a stark repudiation, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary here Tuesday night, falling to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont in a campaign that became a referendum on the incumbent's support for the Iraq war.

Stark repudiation? Narrowly losing does not sound like a strong rejection to me but what do I know. If Lieberman goes Independent he may still be returned to the senate. But for now the "new" democrats are happy. It proves their talking point that nobody likes the Iraq war, although both parties keep voting yes to fund it.

Ned's stance on the Iraq War issue: "Today, America is no safer, Israel is no safer, Iran is more dangerous, Osama bin Laden is still at large, and our brave troops are stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war. I believe that those leaders who got us into this mess should be held accountable … Our best chance of success requires that the Iraqis take control of their own destiny. America should make clear that we have no designs upon their oil and no plans for permanent bases. While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home."

Hmm, how many wrongs can I see in that statement? Israel is no safer, Iran more dangerous. AIPAC and others are glad to hear that one. Iran is more a threat is it Ned? Ned believes the official "bin Laden did it" story. …those leaders who got us into this mess - that would retire and/or convict about 98 percent of D.C. We have no designs on their oil and no plan for permanent bases - certainly an entrepreneur of Ned's caliber knows that is the design and it is going as planned. And he knows this is NOT Vietnam; we are not going to have a dramatic pullout with images of folks hanging onto the helicopter.

And there's that word again – redeployed (as in to other countries in the area). But no mention of a timeframe for bringing troops home (as in on US soil) because the peace-loving democrats, once in power again, will have the same excuses: The Iraqis must take control of their destiny, as in maybe next year or the year after that or the year after that. And surely Ned is aware those massive military installations the US has built will need thousands of US troops, for a long time, to arm and train Iraqis to take control of their destiny. Not to mention guarding the world's largest US embassy in Baghdad. Are we going to build forts and call them embassies now?

What I want Ned and the "new" dems to answer for me is, with a US military of 1 million plus, why does the military keep rotating the same batch of troops as in 2 or 3 and 4 tours of duty? Are they holding back some troops for something else?

And will the dems explain why the safety of Israel is so important to American politicians and policy, when Israel is nothing more than a high-tech weapons factory, half populated by Jewish immigrants given monetary incentive to relocate there (and then moving back to New York City)? Could it be Israel is simply the Office of Zionistas with 5 million Torah and Talmud thumpers as cover? Ned assures Israel of his concern for their safety, and winky wink – he knows Iran is more dangerous. I dunno about you but pandering all sounds the same to me.