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).

Friday, September 15, 2006

 

The Speech Must Have Been "Procedural"

From the Fairfield University Mirror (registration required) comes Sen. Lieberman's newest excuse for not talking about or voting on Iraq - it's just too complicated:

Lieberman did not mention Iraq in his speech, which lasted approximately 20 minutes. In response to a question posed by Fairfield politics professor John Orman, who briefly challenged Lieberman in the Democratic primary last spring, Lieberman said he wouldn't be doing justice to the fight against Al Qaeda or to the war in Iraq if he discussed both in the same speech.


Late Update: Mike from the comments:

So he's saying the invasion of Iraq wasn't part of the war on terror?

Comments:
So he's saying the invasion of Iraq wasn't part of the war on terror?
 
Via Atrios, 11/25/05:
Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning: "I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

WaPo 9/11/06: "The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq....Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar."

Sen. Lieberman truly is divorced from reality. The War to topple Saddam allowed Al-Qaeda into Iraq where there was no relationship before. Lieberman would rather talk about supporting Bush in his next war, Iran.
 
Lieberman said he wouldn't be doing justice to the fight against Al Qaeda or to the war in Iraq if he discussed both in the same speech.

but I thought that, according to bush and lieberman, iraq is "the central front" in "the war on terror" -

how can lieberman possibly credibly deliver a speech about "the war on terror" and not even once mention "the central front" of said war, after having said such so many times previously?

or, is iraq no longer "the central front" of bush's and joe's so-called "war on terror"?
 
Post a Comment



<< Home