In a piece in today's WSJ (free for all!), Daniel Henninger connects the dots between Lamont's primary victory and the foiled terrorist plot in Britain and suggests that Republicans ask their Democratic opponents what they would do to combat terrorism:
And in the past year, Democratic leaders have criticized not just in Iraq but warrantless wiretaps of suspected terrorists, interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, the Swift financial monitoring program, and data-mining phone records. The pull-out-from-Iraq letter was just the culmination.
This is the context in which the post-Lamont Democratic establishment plans to run as an antiwar party. Commencing a phased withdrawal from Iraq, as they suggest, with the mission unfinished, in my view will cause suicide-bomber recruitment to skyrocket in a delirium of victory over the American infidels. And those bombers won't remain inside the imaginary security line around Iraq but will travel to the capitals of Europe, to Israel and to the U.S.
In a better world, the U.S. war on terror, at its core, would be bipartisan. That world was what Joe Lieberman's politics represented. That world is dead. Democratic support for the Republican administration's plans to fight these terrorists is down to about zero. This means the Democrats must have a plan of their own to defeat terror. Every Republican running for office at every level this fall should force his opponent to describe it. And if they aren't certain about the details, they can call Ned Lamont.
The question can now be framed as to whether a particular Democratic candidate is a Lieberman Democrat or a Lamont Democrat. The answer will speak volumes about where they stand on the most pressing issue of the day. And despite what DFL Senate candidate Amy Klobuchar's campaign ads might say, it ain't health insurance.
No comments:
Post a Comment