Why is it that Republicans are never allowed to even whisper about the War on Terror, while Democrats leak security measures, troop movements, and call our troops terrorists (John Kerry, D-MA) and cold blooded murderers (John Murtha, D-PA)? Because if you have a capital D and state initials after your name, you are not held liable by the media. It seems that our Vice President, Dick Cheney, had a little to say about Ned Lamont's big victory (and subsequent future defeat) over Joe Lieberman. To paraphrase, he said that it may encourage the "al Qaida" types in their war against civilization. Why would a Lamont victory encourage terrorists you may ask? He has run on one issue... getting out of Iraq and the War on Terror. Issuing a retreat during a battle or war encourages the enemy, period. Vice President Cheney has stated a fact, and if the Democrats opt to play this as a political issue, so be it. When the political footballs falls on the side of national defense, Republicans typically win, and there is a very good reason for that. It can be most easily seen in that we are not ashamed to be citizens of the United States of America. Republicans argue with facts, Democrats argue with emotion. We're realists, they're idealists. In an ideal world, there would be no reason for war. Conservatives live in the real world. Ned Lamont's victory is a victory for terrorists everywhere, because it symbolizes less harassment of them by the international community, and more specifically the United States. For every Ned Lamont victory, there is a little more time for terrorists to strategize and make bombs. When we have a Ned Lamont in congress, our enemies will have more time to form defining, lasting relationships with each other and terror sponsoring regimes. This is what the victory of someone elected to oppose war under any circumstance will bring. Update (Same Day): My goodness... here are some of the people that would fall into Ned Lamont's "core voter" group. Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin