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


Joe: Iraq Better Than One Year Ago, Worse Than Six Months Ago

How does this work, exactly?

In the debate on July 6th, Joe said:

Well, Tom and Joanne, Ned has got me confused again. But I'll tell you one thing he is wrong about. The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago. The Iraqis held three elections. They formed a unity government. They are on the way to building a free and independent Iraq. Their military -- two-thirds of their military is now ready, on their own, to lead the fight with some logistical backing from the U.S. or stand up on their own totally. That's progress.

Today, six weeks later, Joe said on Face The Nation:

I would say that the last six months have been bad, a setback, and I'm talking mostly about the sectarian violence.

Again, to summarize the Lieberman position:

July 6th: Iraq better than it was a year ago. Iraqi military ready to lead the fight.

August 20th: Iraq worse than it was six months ago. Iraqi military not ready to lead the fight.

Of course, changing his facts doesn't mean he has changed his policy. He still opposes any date for beginning troop withdrawal. He's much more supportive of Bush on this than his new Republican colleagues Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Chris Shays (R-CT), both of whom have supported setting a date for withdrawal this weekend.

And then he goes on to accuse Ned Lamont and the Democratic Party of "distorting" his views on Iraq.

Looks like Joe does quite a good enough job of "distorting" his own record. He doesn't need any help.

(Hat tip John Campanelli.)
You mean "a monthand a half ago," correct?
Thanks. edited.
I take a back seat to no one in my dislike for Lieberman, but actually, there is no inconsistency if the peak was six months ago. You should stop trying to make this point.
Expatjourno -

Then someone should ask Joe if the idea that Iraq "peaked" six months ago was what he was trying to say.

Call me crazy, but somehow I don't think you'd find his answer "consistent."
Washington Post Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Lieberman's Real Problem By Harold Meyerson

As early as December 2001 Lieberman signed a letter to President Bush asking him to make Saddam Hussein's Iraq our next stop in the war against terrorism. As recently as last month, he opposed two Democratic resolutions to scale back our involvement in the war. And just last week Lieberman characterized the progress of the war as "a lot better" than it was a year ago, adding, "They're on the way to building a free and independent Iraq."

So, why the surprise if Connecticut voters, listening to Lieberman and looking at his record, conclude that they cannot trust his judgment on the single most important issue of the day? That's not mandating purity; it's opting for a senator who pays more attention to the war on the ground than to the war in his head.

And an interesting take on "principles"

The issue here isn't that Lieberman is not 100 percent. It's that his positions -- not just on foreign policy but on trade, Social Security and other key issues -- are often out of sync with those of Democrats in his part of the country. To expect his region's voters to dump the area's moderate Republicans but back Lieberman is to expect that they will adopt a double standard in this year's elections.
Blair 'feels betrayed by Bush on Lebanon'

By SIMON WALTERS 22:57pm 19th August 2006

A senior Downing Street source said that, privately, Mr Blair broadly agrees with John Prescott, who said Mr Bush's record on the issue was 'crap'.

The source said: "We all feel badly let down by Bush. We thought we had persuaded him to take the Israel-Palestine situation seriously, but we were wrong. How can anyone have faith in a man of such low intellect?"

The rift between No10 and the White House stems from British anger that Mr Bush failed to do enough to pursue the 'road map' to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, which he approved, at Mr Blair's instigation, on the eve of the Iraq war.

"We have been banging on at them for three years about the need to address the Palestinian problem but they just won't engage," said a senior Government insider. "That is one of the reasons there is such a mess now."

Stay the course.
May the course be with you...
We have an acronym for what Joe's doing, here:


Acr. Assholes Who Will Say Anything; the nether regions of the VRWC. Usage example: "Free loofah with your AWWSA membership!"
The Two Liebermans.

First there is the pandering Joe who is running for office. This is the one who calls for Rumsfeld's resignation in 2003-04 while running for Prez and in 2006 while trying to save his Senate seat. This is also the Joe who praised Louis Farrakhan in 2000 and Al Sharpton in 2004, then denounced basically all black Democrats from Sharpton to Jesse Jackson to Maxine Waters while pandering to white voters in 2006.

Then there is the "real" Joe Lieberman. The one who emerges when he is not running for office. This is the Joe who says we can't criticize the President, that if Rumsfeld resigned it would be a victory for the terrorists, that rape victims should take a hike, that Sam Alito is fit for the Supreme Court, that we shouldn't apologize for Abu Ghraib.

Lamont should make an ad contrasting these two Joes. Because Joe is not a man of principle, he's a man of selfishness and political opportunism.
Maybe so. But then a reporter would have to actually do his or her job. Fact remains, there is not necessarily any inconsistency between the two statements, so this is a bad argument against Lieberman.
Post a Comment

<< Home