Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Sunday, August 20, 2006

 

Face The Joementum

Hearing Joe (R) came off as uncharacteristally nervous and unconfident on Face the Nation this morning. Losing an election must be quite stressful.

Video will likely be up soon at ConnecticutBlog.
Comments:
Joe Lieberman on Face the Nation with Bob Shieffer

----

LIEBERMAN: ...As bad as things are now, and they've gotten worse in the last six months, it would be a disaster if America set a deadline and said we're getting all of our troops out by a given date. That's the position that Ned Lamont has taken that was a position that was introduced in the Senate - got only 13 votes. So - and the reason is that people know if we set a deadline the sectarian violence would not go down it would go up. They would be ready...

SCHIEFFER: But it's not going down now.

LIEBERMAN: Well, we have to look at different things to do to help it go down. And most of all we have to demand that the Iraqi government do a better job, this new unity government, a better job at containing the sectarian violence.

SCHIEFFER: I don't... Let me just ask you one more question.

LIEBERMAN: Please.

SCHIEFFER: Then what do we do? I mean, do you say that the United State just stay there indefinitely.

LIEBERMAN: No. No, and I've said that, that's another distortion that my opponent managed to convince too many people in the Connecticut Democratic Party about. I've never been for an indefinite, unconditional deployment of American troops. Uh, the fact is that the sooner that the Iraqis can take over their own - control of their own destiny the better it will be for them and for us. But here is the point - if we leave precipitously, if we say we're going on X date, everybody's getting out - as bad as things are they will get worse.

---

So I wonder why so many people in the Connecticut Democratic party were convinced that Joe Lieberman is for an indefinite deployment. Was his statement not crystal clear enough for you?
 
He also came off as dishonest.

Joe Lieberman 5/7/04, Fox News:
“We’re in the middle of a war — you wouldn’t want to have the secretary of defense change unless there’s really good reason for it and I don’t see any good reason at this time,” Lieberman said.”

Joe Lieberman, CBS News 8/20/06:
“”I think it’s still time for new leadership at the Pentagon,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he called for Rumsfeld to step down in 2003. “With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq,” he said Sunday.”
 
If there are no benchmarks, no demarkation, no timetable, then it's "indefinite."

indefinite adj. Not definite, especially:
a. Unclear; vague.
b. Lacking precise limits.
c. Uncertain; undecided.

Lieberman's position is Bush's "stay the course" but without "the course."

Iraq is in the middle of a Civil War. There is no Iraqi "unity" government. The "if we leave [now, soon, pick a date], things will get worse" is a Straw Man argument.
 
Lets be honest here...Joementum is all about him and the democratic party be damned...he has the integrity of a seriel killer...
 
I think some need to face the fact that the war against islamofacists is at least a generational struggle. And if we're forced to fight with our hands tied to our feet it will undoubtedly take longer.
 
No he was actually pretty good. Not nervous. And he's right about Rumsfeld.
 
Joe probably had glanced at the Frank Rich column that morning, and knew Kerry would be slamming him on ABC. No wonder he acted nervously.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home