Does Jacob Weisberg accurately describe Lamont supporters? (Of course not)

http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/nav/tap1/



<------- How Slate sees Lamont Dems. :eyes:

"They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11,"

That's the 100% truth. Iraq was a politicized and elective war that had nothing to do with the WOT. I'm shocked anyone can still say Iraq is part of the WOT with a straight face these days... What a tool!

And that is a totally accurate perception of the Iraq war.

Weisberg's tossing it off as a looney idea is profoundly disturbing. All of the evidence I've seen about the prelude to the war supports the idea that it was in the planning long before 9/11 and, in fact, *was* cynically tied to 9/11 to make it more saleable to the American public. How anyone who calls himself objective (let alone "liberal") could not see that is baffling. How could any regime change imposed unilaterally (and it could only have been unilaterally imposed, considering how the rest of the world and sane people everywhere feel about the idea of externally imposed regime change) have ended up any differently?

Weisberg betrays his utter beholdenness to (as Krugman put it in his column today) a "Planet Beltway" view of reality.

I guess maybe larger paychecks.

Or jerkoffs, as the case may be.

We need it. They have it. And we will allow any blood-thirsty dictator, podunk king, or Islamic fanatic to sell it to us - just as long as they keep it flowing. Until and unless this dynamic changes, you can forget about freedom and democracy taking root & flowering in the ME. A real democratic govt might actually use the oil money it gets for the benefit of the majority of its citizens rather than the enrichment of a few elites, the multinational oil conglomerates and their minions (like W and Dick).

And if they turn off the spigot for any reason, or try to nationalize, we attack them.

God, this man is an asshat of the highest order.