On Tuesday, August 8, Connecticut voters got confused on their dates and thought that it was really September 10, 2001.
They voted for a neophyte, unproven, appeasement peacenik over a three term senator, who - like the Democratic Party of yesteryear - was strong on national defense. Last Wednesday they celebrated "peace in our time."
And then on Thursday morning, unless you were too busy following the Democrat spokesperson, Cindy Sheehan's 40-day milkshake-fast-for-peace and deserters, you awakened to the news that the Brits had unraveled a terrorist plan to blow up and sprinkle 10 American planes over U.S. cities.
What a difference a day makes. You might say that last Thursday was "an inconvenient truth" to the left's war on our national security.
To paraphrase a line from an April 4 Ann Coulter column: "If only liberals were half as angry at the people who flew planes into our skyscrapers as they are with (the administration of President George W. Bush,) we might have two patriotic parties in this country."
Of course, hosts on Air America, the liberal radio network, said last Thursday morning that the jihadist plot was the fault of President Bush's war on terrorism.
On Friday, The Wall Street Journal noted that Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy (D., MA) chimed in with "it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win." The Journal then asked if President Bill Clinton's policies caused a similar terrorist plot in 1995.
It should be noted that the British foiled the terrorist plot across the pond by employing the very same methods that have come under withering attack by liberals in the U.S. They profiled the bad guys, tracked their travels, followed the money, listened-in on phone calls and broke into homes.
In the same Friday editorial, the Journal pondered: "Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or The New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs."
Meanwhile back in the states, the program that allows our government to listen-in on phone calls from the United States to friends of Osama Bin Laden is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA.)
It was just last December that The New York Times suggested the Bush administration was violating the terms of FISA. The liberal media and Democrat leaders screamed to high heaven.
Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nevada) and others labeled the program illegal, some called for the president to be censured and several said that if they were in control of Congress they would move to impeach the president.
All the more reason why we don't want these folks in control of Congress.
Then it was just last June 23, when The New York Times exposed an operation which followed the money. Our government reviewed "records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative known as "SWIFT," which routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions.
On both occasions, the Bush administration asked The Times to forego printing the articles for reasons of national security. On both occasions, The Times refused - to the applause of liberals from coast-to-coast.
In a recent editorial, the Baltimore Examiner said that a key to the ability of the British to crack the terrorist conspiracy was a practice called "sneak and peek."
The Examiner briefly explains that "sneak and peek" is when law enforcement officers enter a "suspected plotters' (home) covertly to gather information. U.S. law enforcement officials are not permitted to carry out such operations, except as provided under Section 213 of the Patriot Act. The American Civil Liberties Union is doing everything in its power to hamper or otherwise force the repeal of part or all of that law."
Last Tuesday, before it was revealed that the terrorist attack was thwarted; voters in Connecticut basked in the national glow of what was being referred to as a national referendum on our national security policies and the war in Iraq, in particular.
Three-term Sen. Joseph Lieberman was defeated by Neville Chamberlain - I mean Ned Lamont - who attacked the senator and the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies relentlessly. (Motto: "All we are saying is give peace a chance.)
The Democratic Party leadership has been quick to publicly support Mr. Lamont's candidacy for this fall as Senator Lieberman mounts a campaign to run as an independent.
Bear in mind, Senator Lieberman's lifetime rating from the Americans for Democratic Action is 78 percent and his lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 17 percent. Yet, the Democratic Party has decided that Senator Lieberman, the standard bearer as the party's vice presidential candidate just six years ago, is too conservative.
One wonders how the voters in Connecticut feel about their vote today.
Meanwhile, in the near future, as you are hopping on an airplane, a train, visiting a crowded restaurant, or shopping at the mall, thank your lucky stars that the ACLU, The New York Times and liberal Democrats aren't running the country.
As a matter of fact, when you go to vote in this fall's elections, remember that the party of George Soros, Cindy Sheehan, Ned Lamont, Michael Moore, Harry Reid and friends, with the complicity of the liberal main stream media, want to sing Kum Ba Yah with the misunderstood jihadists, who want to otherwise cut off your head.
The moral relativists have radically waged a war against the very programs that just last week spared hundreds from mass murder. And after the second verse is finished, they want to impeach the president, who has stood by his convictions and stayed the course in Iraq and Afghanistan, detained and interrogated the bad guys, intercepted their phone calls and followed the money.
Mr. Lamont and the liberals of the defeatist cut-and-run party - the phone call is for you. London's calling.
Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster: E-mail him at: firstname.lastname@example.org