Lie. Lamont backs the Kerry-Feingold approach, which in no way calls for an immediate withdrawal of troops, but a phased withdrawal to be completed by July of next year. Lamont has also said he would work within the Democratic party to find consensus if a longer-term phased withdrawal was more favored.

Here we go again with Rummy. Let's revisit a bit: in October 2003, when he was running for President, Joe said he'd dump Rummy if he were president. In May 2004, it was an unthinkable idea that would embolden the terrorists:

[I]t is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war. . . . Secretary Rumsfeld's removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's presence in Iraq.

Today, Rummy has to go. Gee! What a surprise to hear that from Joe during a tough election!

And this is what he says about people who support this bill:

This is a plan for giving up in Iraq. For giving up on Iraq’s hopes forbecoming free and independent. And for giving up Iraq to the sectarian militias, to the terrorists, and to the Iranians and Syrians who wouldexploit the resulting chaos.

Let me explain why his plan is not just a bad idea, but a formula for defeat and disaster.

Yes Joe, do please give us the benefit of your experience and wisdom, your superior judgment. You’ve been right about so much up to now.

There was nothing surprising for those who have been paying attention all along (so, perhaps, there was something surprising for some in the media), but what struck me was how well Lamont has mastered the details. He seems far more in command of chapter and verse on what's been going down in the debate about Iraq than Lieberman himself. (Of course, in Joe's defense, it should be noted that he's had more important things to do than actually participate in Senate discussions about the war and represent the people of Connecticut.) Lamont's able to cite specific time frames in which this general said that, when most of us can barely remember what they did last week. Clearly, he's done his homework and feels comfortable with the material....

When it was over, I asked one reporter how Lamont compared with Lieberman in terms of his openess and willingness to answer questions. "Completely different," she said, "Lieberman just runs."

Of course, none of that will get reported.

In the course of the speech, Lieberman sought to turn a liability into a strength by invoking the National Intelligence Estimate -- and cast it as a rebuke of Lamont, not of him. He folded the point into a question on which he and Lamont disagree: whether the U.S. should set a deadline for withdrawing forces....

The nine months question, and the deadline question, followed Lamont to the Wall Street sidewalk outside Naples. He continued saying that nine months wasn't the issue, that Lieberman had mischaracterized that bill. And he sought to shift the spin on the day's news. "Joe Lieberman has been consistently wrong on the war in Iraq for three and a half years," he said. "Now we have a mess on our hands. It is time to change course."

Lamont and other Democrats have seized on the National Intelligence Estimate as proof the Bush administration and supporters such as Lieberman have blundered on the war.

"I think just staying the course, trying to make a military statement there is just making the situation worse for the last 3 1/2 years," Lamont said at a campaign stop Monday in New Haven. "He wants more of the same. There are an awful lot of generals, and people in the intelligence community, that are agreeing with us."