With today's news of the latest Al Qaeda plot to blow up 6-10 commercial airliners traveling overseas from England to the United States-- so much for the theory that they were "done" with airplanes-- the Boston Herald's Jules Crittenden chimes in with this incredible column, in which he diligently and painfully attempts to connect-- (wait for it!)-- today's terror threat with cable executive Ned Lamont's win in the Senatorial primary in Connecticut.
Lamont and company see Iraq as distinct from the war against al-Qaeda. They see Lebanon as distinct from all of this. These are wars that fuel al-Qaeda, they say. People who are upset to see war in Iraq and Lebanon did not like Joe Lieberman’s support of the United States and Israel. They do not accept that violent Islamic extremism, the subverting of democracy by armed thugs and the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction by pariah states anywhere is part of the same war. They do not accept that the efforts to destroy extremism in those failed states are necessary to destroy a hydra-headed, opportunistic enemy.
But many of the good people of Connecticut who voted for Lamont will. All those security moms who thought they could go back to being soccer moms. Security moms once more. They cast their feel-good votes Tuesday to express their distaste for violence. But that portion of the electorate that allowed itself to be briefly distracted by the bright shiny object Lamont was dangling in front of them -- easy peace, all glittery and yours for the asking -- are waking up from their gauzy dream this morning and remembering what Joe Lieberman stands for. Their security. Something not easily achieved. Something that requires hard choices and uncompromising action.
Because another quarter has been heard from. Al-Qaeda, always annoyed when it is ignored, has spoken up again. With its plot to blow multiple commerical airliners out of the sky, Al-Qaeda has endorsed Joe Lieberman.
This might be the most inane column I have read in a while. What is Crittenden smoking? There are so many flaws in the op-ed-- (what "security moms" do you know that were haphardly sliding back into "soccer mom" mode before today's threat?)--that it is hard to know where to begin.
For starters, what is his point? I think his point is that Lamont's victory was a victory for peace-loving hippy beatniks who continually fail to see the connection between Iraq and 9-11. Erase from your mind, a la the Jedi Mind trick, the fact that there was no connection between the two, (although Crittenden tries oh-so-hard to connect all the dots, with that unifying reference to a thread of "Islamic extremism, the subverting of democracy by armed thugs and the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction by pariah states"). If that's all it takes to make the connection, why not include Cuba in our next military adventure?
In any event, Crittenden seems to be saying that today's terror threat finally shows that Lamont's weak-on-terror/complacency platform is bound to fail in the long run. And that soccer moms, even if they want to be soccer moms, cannot have it their way. No. Alas, they must go back to being security moms. [What is a security mom anyway? She places peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in her kid's lunches with a dose of Cipro and a rubber fallout blanket?]
But the biggest problem of this op-ed is the TITLE (and the last sentence): "Al Quaeda has endorsed Joe Leiberman."
I think he means to say that today's threat shows we should be all supporting Lieberman over Lamont. But wouldn't an "endorsement" from Al Quaeda actually be a bad thing? That's like saying "the Nazis have endorsed Moye." It's not a good thing.
If Lieberman were endorsed by Al Qaeda, say in a well-written and persuasive op-ed in the Kabul Tribune, wouldn't that be a compelling reason to vote against him?