So Democrats are now whethering the "harsh" attacks from Republicans because Ned Lamont who does not support the Iraq Occupation beat the most prominent Democrat supporter, everyone's favorite Joe Lieberman. Now all of you know that among the many other substantative reasons and irritating actions made by Sen. Lieberman over the past 5 years which would make him very fit for defeat in a Democratic primary, Iraq was the straw that broke this camel's back.
But I am find the attacks by Republicans almost absurd and I am bit astonished how A) belligerent they are about Lieberman's defeat (which would give me only more joy in Lamont's win and also indicates desparation ) B) How Republicans are defining there argument for the idea of war as a sympathetic ideal. There almost romanticizing an act of violence. The whole reason that Lamont and the large majority of Americans are against the war is that we accept the sacrifice of struggle against those who perpetuate violance against innocents. We in Iraq are doing that. If Republicans want to start framing this debate on whether war is a good thing and in fact something that no one should be against, I want to see Democrats engage in this debate in order to clarify what these morons are really saying. Democrats will have their lead-in to where the struggle against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations should lead to and that is a lasting peace. After all I think that after milleniums of mankind attacking and destroying one another, I thought that by the end of this century we decided war was a bad thing...