More tough words from the WSJ
Posted by Joseph Knippenberg
Daniel Henninger:
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.
Naomi Schaefer Riley:
If the religious left is serious about attracting more people of faith to the Democratic Party--Ms. Seger believes that even evangelicals will gather under the new big tent--its leaders might want to consider the kind of religion that people in America actually practice. Hint: It is judgmental. It sometimes involves public condemnation.
But of course, the religious left is less serious about a politician’s loyalty to religious belief than about his loyalty to the Democratic Party. "He’s going to run on the independent ticket," Ms. Sager notes of Mr. Lieberman, with disgust. "What kind of Democrat is that?"
7:16 AM / August 11, 2006
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
All this hodgepodge about terrorism is worthless. The Democratic voters of Conn. have decided that Lieberman is not their man...if that means Democrats aren’t tough on terrorism, so be it. Let the larger electorate make the final decision on who they think will do the job.
I wish the Democrats would just come out and reject the war on "terrorism". I always thought that it was such a stupid thing to call a war. That would be like FDR declaring a war on "fighter jets" after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor . . . the "terrorism" is just the tool to reach an end . . . it’s not the inital factor that NEEDS to be fought: Islam. We need to declare ideological WAR on Islam and no one is willing to talk about that . . .
Personally (and I hope this doesn’t distract much from what I just wrote), I wouldn’t mind if the Democrats would just flat out say that they’re sick of the limitations religion is putting on American foreign/domestic policy anyway. Let’s use a bit of rationale to fight religion’s pushiness (in a direction that, in my opinion, is dangerous for our country . . . and the world).
But, back to topic (and one that more of you will be sympathetic toward): let’s take out Islam ideologically. "Peace" my rear-end . . .
I mean, they’d lose every election from that point on . . . but winning’s not the most important thing, right? Right? Heh.