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:
Today, six weeks later, Joe said on Face The Nation:
Again, to summarize the Lieberman position:
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.)
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.)
posted by tparty at 5:27 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
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."
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.
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.
Post a Comment
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.
<< Home