It comes like a punch to the gut, at times like these, when our leaders blatantly use the nation’s trauma for political gain.
Profound words, from the NY Times. And, of course, we all remember when they said that. They've pointed out how the Democrats have attempted to use the trauma of every dead American soldier for political gain. They've criticized John Kerry and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They've excoriated John Murtha and Ned Lamont. Attempting to score political points on the flag-draped coffins of American servicemen. It's reprehensible behavior, and the NY Times has rightly called them on it.
Oh, wait - no they haven't. As a matter of fact, if memory serves, they've actually played that same tune themselves. So, what, exactly, are they talking about in this editorial today? Who do they think is "blatantly us[ing] the nation's trauma for political gain" if it's not the Ned Lamonts of the left? Why, it's Ned Lamont's opponent, Joe Lieberman!
...that did not seem to deter Mr. Lieberman from scoring a cheap sound bite yesterday. Leaving Iraq, as Mr. Lamont advocates, "will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England," he said. "It will strengthen them and they will strike again."
Leaving aside, for a moment, the fact that what Lieberman said is unquestionably true, what does the Times think he should have done? His position since day one has been that Iraq is not a distraction, but a central battle in the war against Islamic terrorism. Given that, he had three options when asked to comment.
- Be true to his position, and say what he said.
- Say nothing.
- Change his position.
In any event, it's more than a little bit pathetic that the New York Times' first reaction to yesterday's news is to make sure no one the Times dislikes derives any political gain from the fact that the Times appears to be wrong, again.