What would the Republicans be without the terrorists

Ned Lamont, who is against the Iraq war, won the Democratic party primary for the Connecticut State Senator seat recently. His opponent was a fence sitter Joe Lieberman, who supports the war.

The Vice President felt compelled to comment on the primary results with the following:

The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of 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.

It must be very stressful to constantly lie to the American public. No wonder the lying sack of shit has had multiple heart attacks.

The Washington Post has an excellent discussion on Cheney's orchestrated propaganda campaign.

William Greiger writes in his blog:

An evil symbiosis does exist between Muslim terrorists and American politicians, but it is not the one Republicans describe. The jihadists need George W. Bush to sustain their cause. His bloody crusade in the Middle East bolsters their accusation that America is out to destroy Islam. The president has unwittingly made himself the lead recruiter of willing young martyrs.

More to the point, it is equally true that Bush desperately needs the terrorists. They are his last frail hope for political survival. They divert public attention, at least momentarily, from his disastrous war in Iraq and his shameful abuses of the Constitution. The "news" of terror--whether real or fantasized--reduces American politics to its most primitive impulses, the realm of fear-and-smear where George Bush is at his best.

Paul Krugman writes in New York Times:

We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited.

-TPP