CT-SEN: Lieberman To Characterize Lamont As Favoring "Immediate Withdrawal" From Iraq
In his big speech today at 11:45 A.M. about Iraq, it looks as if Joe Lieberman is going to characterize Ned Lamont's plan for Iraq as favoring "immediate withdrawal" -- even though that's not Lamont's position. The Associated Press reports: "The Lamont plan for immediate withdrawal and an arbitrary deadline is doomed to fail and weaken our security," Lieberman's speech reads. But Lamont doesn't favor immediate withdrawal: He actually favors the Kerry-Feingold amendment, which calls for phased withdrawal to be substantially completed by July 1, 2007. Lamont's also said he'd support the plan for longer-term phased withdrawal favored by most Dems if that's what party consensus dictated. More from his speech after the jump.
More Associated Press excerpts from Lieberman's speech:
"The clear choice before Connecticut's voters in this campaign is Ned Lamont's plan for giving up on Iraq versus my plan for getting the job done there," Lieberman is expected to say according to remarks prepared for delivery Monday at a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Connecticut..."The Lamont plan for immediate withdrawal and an arbitrary deadline is doomed to fail and weaken our security," Lieberman's speech reads. "It will leave our troops more vulnerable to attack while they remain, and will leave Iraq to become a failed state and a terrorist breeding ground when were gone."...
"It will accelerate our training of Iraqis security forces, by embedding more American troops with them, so they can take over from our troops; bring in our allies in Europe and the Arab world to fortify the Iraqi economy; make clear to Iraq's political leadership that our continued support is contingent on them doing everything possible to build a strong unity government," Lieberman's speech says...
"We have to realize that reasonable people can disagree on this difficult question, and that does not make you a terrorist sympathizer, on the one hand, or a warmonger, on the other."
Clever. The ensuing controversy will remind Lamont supporters that Ned's difference with Joe on Iraq amounts to a symbolic dime's worth of difference, maybe, but far short of a dollar.
Joe's plan ain't real either, but no skin off his nose. Most poll internals show Iraq a weak vote-driver. This move weakens it further, simultaneously moves it up in the spotlight, and Ned doesn't seem to have much option but to play along.
On the merits - in a campaign that has dwelt on misrepresentation from stem to stern and port to starboard - Kerry's plan (in the imaginary case where it has a snowball's chance of enactment) would require virtually immediate staged troop withdrawals to meet its mid-2007 target.
September 25, 2006 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time for Kerry and Feingold to make an appearance in CT next to Ned Lamont and call Joe Lieberman on his distortions.
September 25, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope right after he gives that speech Lamont hits him right in the head with the NIE report...figuratively of course, lmao!! ;-)
September 25, 2006 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, the excerpt above is a bit confusing/misleading (unintentional, I'm sure). The second paragraph is Lieberman's characterization of Lamont's plan -- the third paragraph is Lieberman's characterization of his own plan, not Lamont's.
addie
September 25, 2006 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I called Joe's Senate Office this morning about that and got an answering machine.
I guess his staff is too busy making up things to answer the phone, like my other Senator and Congresswomans staff did.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
September 25, 2006 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's "hard work" writing all that fiction...so hard there is no time to have anyone answer the phone when one of the people who employs him wants to talk.
Actually he is so good at fiction he should consider a career in fiction writing, a la Steven King, after he is voted out of office.
September 25, 2006 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was charmed, of course, by the Times coverage today, about Lamont's suddenly taking an interest in anything other than Iraq. Gosh, I never knew before that there was a difference between Lieberman and us on domestic issues. How blind I was and how grateful to the media I am.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
September 25, 2006 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is "immediate withdrawal and an arbitrary deadline" a distortion of Kerry-Feingold? As introduced 2006-06-21:
September 25, 2006 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Lamont plan for immediate withdrawal and an arbitrary deadline is doomed to fail and weaken our security,"
That's pretty Talmudic. I mean "immediate" is a definite time and "arbitrary" is an indefinite time. How can Lamont accomplish such a logically incompatible feat.
The quality of coherent thinking has gone down in the Lieberman camp
September 25, 2006 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I despise about contemporary journalism. Either report and state explicity that Lieberman doesn't know Lamont's position (or he's deliberately lieing) or don't report a bogus claim at all. A reporter does not even have to get a quote from the Lamont camp to report the distortion, whether its deliberate or not.
September 25, 2006 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hardly "sudden," as anyone in Connecticut is well aware of.
Lamont has been campaigning on UHC and Education that isn't tied to testing, among many other domestic issues, from day one.
But thanks for playing.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
September 25, 2006 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh pulleese!
Ned Lamont's position on Iraq changes as often as dirty diapers at a La Leche meeting.
Connecticut Post: Lamont Supports Timetabled Withdrawal Over 18 Months. According to the Connecticut Post, Lamont, in an appearance yesterday in Washington said he “remains opposed to the Iraq war and supports a withdrawal of troops, based on a timetable set in concert with the U.S. military and Iraqi government. He believes it could be done within 18 moths, as Gen. George Casey, commander of multi-national forces in Iraq, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki have suggested.” [Connecticut Post, 9/7/06]
But Tom Swan Says Ned Lamont Wants Immediate Withdrawal of Troops form Iraq. In an email to supporters sent on September 7, Ned Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan wrote the following about Ned Lamont: “He believes it’s high time for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from the front lines, allowing the Iraqi people to stand up and take control of their country and removing the US face from the occupation.” A full draft of the email is below. [Tom Swan email to campaign supporters, 9/7/06]
Ned Lamont: “I think you know what my position is. I think everyone knows what my position is. It is our goal to get our frontline troops out of Iraq within a year.” In a press conference a week after the primary, Ned Lamont said in response to a question of his position on Iraq, ”I think you know what my position is. It is our goal to get our frontline troops out of Iraq within a year. I think it is time for the Iraqi’s to step forward.” [Ned Lamont Press Conference, 8/16/06]
Ned Lamont on Fox News Sunday: “We’re Going to Have Our Troops Out Within a Year.” On Fox News Sunday just after the primary, Ned Lamont said, “But right now I think our policy ought to be let's be clear with the Maliki government. We're going to have our troops out within a year. We'll be there for reconstruction, training, everything else in the background. But yes, I think let's set the record straight. [Fox News Sunday, 8/13/06]
[LAMONT EMAIL TO SUPPORTERS, 9/7/06]
Dear Supporter,
What about President Bush and Senator Lieberman's leadership has proven their judgement to be worth one more life in Iraq?
How have they made us safer? What have they been right about so far?
When is a Senator's desperate attempt to cling to political power worth aligning himself with "Swift Boat Veteran" allies and pre-war partisan propaganda peddlers?
These are questions that demand answers.
Watch our new television ad and sign the letter asking Senator Lieberman to denounce his newest shadowy Republican ally's television ads.
http://www.nedlamont.com/atwhatcost:
I say shadowy because "Veterans for Truth" are one of those mysterious 527 organizations shielded from disclosing individuals funding their effort.
All we know about them is that pro-war propagandists like William Kristol and Dan Senor drive their public relation efforts. That's the same Senor and Kristol instrumental in packaging and selling a war based on lies and half-truths.
"Packaging and selling" ... quite appropriate when you consider Senator Lieberman recently voiced his only pre-war criticism of the Bush Adminstration: they "oversold the WMD part of the argument."
Justification for war as a sales pitch? Shameful.
Watch the video and sign the letter.
http://www.nedlamont.com/atwhatcost:
"Support the mistakes made by the Bush Administration and Joe Lieberman or you hate the troops."
Aren't you sick and tired of Dick Cheney and Senator Lieberman hiding behind the American flag when called defend the current course in Iraq?
It's disgusting, and it comes at the expense of reasonable political discourse about the issues that matter most to the people of Connecticut.
Yesterday, a dozen veterans signed a letter calling on Senator Lieberman to denounce his brand of guttoral politics. Can we count on you to watch our new ad and do the same?
http://www.nedlamont.com/atwhatcost: http://www.nedlamont.com/atwhatcost
Ned Lamont believes the war in Iraq has been a distraction from an effective war on terror, and that the US should fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. He believes its high time for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from the front lines, allowing the Iraqi people to stand up and take control of their country and removing the US face from the occupation.
And so do we,
Tom Swan
Campaign Manager, Ned Lamont for US Senate
September 25, 2006 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very Good. Not good enough, however. Did you actually read what you posted here?
I don't see the problem, Lamont is for the U.S. to start drawing down troops immediately, finishing in 12-18 months.
That is what I have always understood, and a majority of Connecticut Democrats agree.
Lamont is not for "defeat," as Lieberman falsely asserted, but for facing reality. How is it that you see his position "changing" from one of those items to the other?
"Immediately" is something that depends on the context. Lieberman made it sound as if Lamont wants to withdraw all the troops tomorrow.Balderdash. Codswallop. It's quite clear he doesn't, as it is simply not practical to do so. What Lamont wants, indeed the majority of Americans want, is for the immediate start of troop withdrawals NOW.
That is not defeat. There is a civil war going on in Iraq. Getting out of that mess is getting our guys out of harms way. They are no longer effective at protecting the Iraqi government, and it's high time we were out of there.
Even Bush said the mission was "accomplished" so where is the problem exactly?
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
September 25, 2006 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seedfreak = Lieberman staffer.
September 25, 2006 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink