LIEBERMAN LOSS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY ''HOMELAND SECURITY ALERT''

Islamic Community Net

August 10, 2006

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/islamiccommunitynet/message/10407

Assalamu aleikum.

Well, naturally.

Zionist US Senator and former Al Gore vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, Bush's personal donkey, was defeated by his own Democratic party in the Connecticut primary election on Tuesday. The reason is well understood to be Lieberman's outrageous support for dajjal Bush's so-called "War on Terror" both domestically and internationally.

The result is that other politicians are starting to see the advisability of giving up on Bush and his Crusader Rabbit genocide against Islam.

So immediately a massive 9/11-style plot to blow up 20 airplanes using unspecified "liquid explosives" is conveniently and suddenly "discovered", just in time to terrify the American sheeple and thus put those wavering politicians back in line.

How transparent! Yet the American sheeple will once again prove just how naive they are by demanding from their own politicians yet more suppression of their own liberties in the name of "homeland security".

Please note that 2 articles follow:

*US raises security threat level to "severe"

*Top Democrats flee Lieberman camp



---



(1)

US raises security threat level to "severe"

Reuters

Thu Aug 10, 2006

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-08-10T071310Z_01_N10383008_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BRITAIN-USA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is taking immediate steps to increase security measures in the aviation sector in coordination with heightened security precautions in the United Kingdom, the department said in a statement on Thursday.

"For that reason, the United States Government has raised the nation's threat level to Severe, or Red, for commercial flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States," the statement said.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-08-10T071310Z_01_N10383008_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BRITAIN-USA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22



---



(2)

Top Democrats flee Lieberman camp

The senator vowed to push on as analysts debated what his loss augured for the party in the fall.

Steven Thomma, McClatchy News Service

Minneapolis Star-Tribune

August 10, 2006

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/605834.html




HARTFORD, CONN. - Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., found himself a political orphan Wednesday.

His party's leaders, his friends and liberal activists all seemed to have turned against him the day after Connecticut Democrats rejected his bid for a fourth term and voted for antiwar activist Ned Lamont, 52 percent to 48 percent.

Lieberman vowed to wage an independent campaign to hold his seat regardless of pressure to drop out and endorse Lamont. "My mind is made up," he said on NBC-TV. "I'm going forward. I'm going forward because I'm fed up with all the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting anything done."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who'd supported Lieberman's reelection, offered Lamont support and campaign contributions. Liberal blogger David Sirota urged that Lieberman be stripped of his Senate committee assignments if he runs.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement, "The perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the president more than anything else."

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he saw the election as a good sign for Democrats because it meant that voters are angry enough to turn out incumbents -- of whom there are more Republicans than Democrats. He linked Lieberman's loss to the Tuesday primary defeats of Reps. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., and Joe Schwarz, R-Mich.

But two independent analysts said party leaders were overreaching. Amy Walter, who analyzes House races for the Cook Political Report, said McKinney lost because of a history of erratic behavior. "If you have any political baggage, this is not a year in which you can stow it in the overhead bin and hope nobody will notice," she said.

She said Lieberman and Schwarz lost because of ideological splits in their parties more than anti-incumbent fever, noting that no other House Democrats appear vulnerable.

And Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said, "We saw where the heart and soul of the Democratic Party is. It's against the war and angry at the president. But it's Connecticut. It's a liberal state. And we're talking about Joe Lieberman, who is almost unique in cozying up to the president and criticizing those who criticize the president.

"Democrats in the Northeast are more liberal and are holding their candidates to a higher standard. The Democratic base in the South and Midwest is of a different ilk. There's no message for Senator Ben Nelson," a Nebraska Democrat.

GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman issued a statement that said of Lieberman's defeat, "It speaks volumes about the new Democrat Party: if you stand for a strong defense and victory in the War on Terror, you have no place in the party and you must be purged. ... Watch how the new Democrat Party always chooses weakness over strength, blaming America first."

But White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said, "I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president; I would flip it.

"I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you."

sthomma@mcclatchydc.com

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/605834.html

This is a soul-searching moment for the Jewish left. Actually, for many Jewish liberals, navigating the gloomy politics of the Middle East is like walking with two left feet.

I would know. For six years I was the literary editor of Tikkun magazine, a leading voice for progressive Jewish politics that never avoided subjecting Israel to moral scrutiny. I also teach human rights at a Jesuit university, imparting the lessons of reciprocal grievances and the moral necessity to regard all people with dignity and mutual respect. And I am deeply sensitive to Palestinian pain, and mortified when innocent civilians are used as human shields and then cynically martyred as casualties of war.

Yet, since 9/11 and the second intifada, where suicide bombings and beheadings have become the calling cards of Arab diplomacy, and with Hamas and Hezbollah emerging as elected entities that, paradoxically, reject the first principles of liberal democracy, I feel a great deal of moral anguish. Perhaps I have been naïve all along.

And I am not alone. Many Jews are in my position -- the children and grandchildren of labor leaders, socialists, pacifists, humanitarians, antiwar protestors -- instinctively leaning left, rejecting war, unwilling to demonize, and insisting that violence only breeds more violence. Most of all we share the profound belief that killing, humiliation and the infliction of unnecessary pain are not Jewish attributes.

However, the world as we know it today -- post-Holocaust, post-9/11, post-sanity -- is not cooperating. Given the realities of the new Middle East, perhaps it is time for a reality check. For this reason, many Jewish liberals are surrendering to the mindset that there are no solutions other than to allow Israel to defend itself -- with whatever means necessary. Unfortunately, the inevitability of Israel coincides with the inevitability of anti-Semitism.

This is what more politically conservative Jews and hardcore Zionists maintained from the outset. And it was this nightmare that the Jewish left always refused to imagine. So we lay awake at night, afraid to sleep. Surely the Arabs were tired, too. Surely they would want to improve their societies and educate their children rather than strap bombs on to them.

If the Palestinians didn't want that for themselves, if building a nation was not their priority, then peace in exchange for territories was nothing but a pipe dream. It was all wish-fulfillment, morally and practically necessary, yet ultimately motivated by a weary Israeli society -- the harsh reality of Arab animus, the spiritual toll that the occupation had taken on a Jewish state battered by negative world opinion.

Despite the deep cynicism, however, Israel knew that it must try. It would have to set aside nearly 60 years of hard-won experience, starting from the very first days of its independence, and believe that the Arab world had softened, would become more welcoming neighbors, and would stop chanting: "Not in our backyard -- the Middle East is for Arabs only."

It is true that Israel has entered into peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan that have brought some measure of historic stability to the region. But with Israel having withdrawn from Lebanon and Gaza, and with Israeli public opinion virtually united in favor of near-total withdrawal from the West Bank, why are rockets being launched at Israel now, why are their soldiers being kidnapped if the aspirations of the Palestinian people, and the intentions of Hamas and Hezbollah, stand for something other than the total destruction of Israel? And if Palestinians and the Lebanese are electing terrorists and giving them the portfolio of statesmen, then what message is being sent to moderate voices, what incentives are there to negotiate, and how can any of this sobering news be recast in a more favorable light?

The Jewish left is now in shambles. Peace Now advocates have lost their momentum, and, in some sense, their moral clarity. Opinion polls in Israel are showing near unanimous support for stronger incursions into Lebanon. And until kidnapped soldiers are returned and acts of terror curtailed, any further conversations about the future of the West Bank have been set aside.

Not unlike the deep divisions between the values of red- and blue-state America, world Jewry is being forced to reconsider all of its underlying assumptions about peace in the Middle East. The recent disastrous events in Lebanon and Gaza have inadvertently created a newly united Jewish consciousness -- bringing right and left together into one deeply cynical red state.