Dem leadership failed to coalesce around Lamont against their dear buddy Joe

It is and has been my contention that Joe is the face of AIPAC. Lamont did not defeat Lieberman in the primary, he defeated AIPAC.

As you mention, the Democratic party to did not leap to Lamont’s defense and promote his victory. In fact, one day after Lamont defeated Joe, Lamont’s name was pushed completely out of the news cycle by Karl Rove, the Terrorist….

When Lieberman lost in the primary to Lamont, it wasn’t 36 hours later that Rove launched the False – False Flag Terror Threat in London.

During the next 24 hour news cycle while the headlines falsely screamed:

“TERROR IN THE SKIES”

The media quietly released two Israel-related stories under the radar …

The first was that a US Submariner named Ariel Joseph Weinmann had been arrested 6 MONTHS EARLIER for Espionage on behalf of “a foreign country.”

12 hours later, the story broke that the Two AIPAC Officials charged with Espionage in the Franklin/AIPAC spy scandal were still going to face trial, despite their attorney’s best efforts to have the case thrown out.

These three matters, Lamont’s victory over AIPAC’s Lieberman, the revelation of yet another Israeli spy caught passing naval secrets to Israel, and the AIPAC Spy trial moving forward ALL hit the news at the same time – and were ALL quickly buried by a fully-complicity “news” media.

If you think these events are unrelated, and that Lamont disappeared from the headlines by coincidence – in light of the subsequent admission that the entire scare was a hoax – well, I opt not to attribute these matters to coincidence.

Plus, that person would be shamed out of town for being a liar and a cheat…

Many on these blogs make emphatic statements without providing empirical data, as that standard is too high a threshold to expect of anyone not privy to classified information. I dare say that none hold the main stream media to that high a standard. How many times have you heard them parrot the line:

“no terrorist attacks have occurred on US soil since 9/11″

A hundred?

It’s simply a lie – though they repeat it almost daily, ignoring the anthrax terror attacks, which regardless of who actually carried them out were in fact Terror Attacks by our own government’s definition.

When Benazir Bhutto told BBC Reporter, David Frost, that Bin Laden had been killed, and by whom, no one requested empirical data of her…they simply killed her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

Anyone who enters into any conversation online about tracking down Bin Laden should first have to prove that he’s alive – or at least mention the possibility that he is in fact dead. Otherwise they are engaged in promoting a government-created lie.

I asked because when I make declarative statements on specific claims, i try and back them up with data, evidence and source material to lay out exactly where my reasoning comes from, why I feel that way, what other sourcing materials agree with my assessment and such. And having covered the Lamont race in minute detail, your claims did not — and do not — match with what I know, with what I saw, and with what I understood. There were a myriad of factors, not the least of which because the Dem leadership failed to coalesce around Lamont against their dear buddy Joe, which gave the on-the-fence voters of CT permission not to do so either; the inopportune vacation that Lamont took right after the primary which, although he was exhausted, stifled the substantial momentum he had gained from his win; the Big Dog statement on Larry King which undercut Lamont’s support from Dem leaderhip in the state; the street money and other initiatives that Lieberman took using old pol tactics in a lot of the urban neighborhoods; and a whole host of other factors none of which directly go back to AIPAC as far as I know — again, I’d need evidence to say otherwise. Solid evidence.

So if you were basing your statement on specific evidence, I wanted to see it.

But, alas, while AIPAC and the neocon faction of the GOP have divergent interests in spades, is is not the same as saying that AIPAC caused Ned Lamont to lose the election. And that’s why I wanted to see sourcing — if I’m going to challenge what I know to be true, I want to do so based on evidence in front of me — not just a hunch or surmising. Call it my lawyer training, but that’s how I evaluate things. And merely saying something out loud does not make it true, no matter how much you may not like the actors involved or doubt their intent or otherwise.

In fact, Bin Laden is dead. 9/11 WAS an inside job. These are facts.

You will of course, allow the rest of us to find those facts for ourselves and not rely on your conclusions as proof, right?

“When you state”