Friday, June 23, 2006

Lamont: Joining the Ranks of the Flip Flop


By urging the senator to support the less aggressive of the two withdrawal plans - one with no firm deadline - Lamont appeared to back away from comments in recent weeks supporting an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from combat.

"I support the Levin-Reed Amendment on U.S. Policy in Iraq, and I urge Senator Lieberman to do the same," Lamont said in a statement posted Wednesday on his website. "It represents the minimum needed, but will build a Democratic coalition to establish and stick to a plan to end the war." Lamont was referring to a proposal by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island for a phased withdrawal from Iraq beginning sometime this year.


And there you have it, the Lamont who campaigns to the anti-war fringe but actually believes something else.

The Courant Lamont Wavers, Rival Camp Says, June 23, 2006, MARK PAZNIOKAS

84 comments:

Don Pesci said...

At least Lamont is good at dissimulation. He should make a fine politician. Does Kos know about this?

MikeCT said...

turfgrrl,

You don't have the honesty to summarize the full story:

A second measure offered by Sens. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., would have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. It got 13 votes.

"I would have supported them both, Lamont said. "You've heard me say before, I think it's time to get our front line troops out of harm's way."


I think Lamont should have clearly said up front that he supported both proposals, with a preference for Kerry-Feingold. He apparently preferred to emphasize his support the weaker measure as the "consensus" bill to demonstrate his solidarity with fellow Dems. I think this kind of "consensus thinking" is what got us into this war. On the other hand, he is now stating that he would support both as progress toward withdrawal - as anyone who wants withdrawal would do.

AnonAndOnAndOn said...

Oh Neddie, we hardly knew ye...

First off, kudos to him for taking a stand, but if he wants to play in the big leagues, he's going to have to realize that people will do just what he's done to Joe: interpret his words (fairly or unfairly).

Til now, Little Neddie has been able to skate by parsing Joe's words and actions. Now we'll see how his campaign handles the spotlight.

Geez, I hope this doesn't mean I'll have to learn how to spell Slesh... Schlesh... Sless... Aw, forget it.

Gio said...

Holy Crap--Connecticut Liberal Politics is actually semi critical of Lamont!!! Wow--must be a bunch of DLC'ers who run this site.

cgg said...

"I would have supported them both, Lamont said. "You've heard me say before, I think it's time to get our front line troops out of harm's way."

Sean Smith claims to be confused by Lamont's position. If that's the case then I understand why the Lieberman campaign is having so many problems.

Gio said...

Lamont is a tool of the radical left wing. If the nutroots elect him in August, he is going to have to tack back to the center to win the general election...and then what do we get...another Joe Lieberman.

tparty said...

Turfgirl, this is sadly dishonest and brings the credibility of this entire site into question.

Read the article:

"I would have supported them both, Lamont said. "You've heard me say before, I think it's time to get our front line troops out of harm's way."

He would have supported them both. Both Amendments.

You'll change the title of this post if you want anyone to take you seriously ever again.

The only "confusing" position on Iraq in this race is held by a Connecticut Democratic senator who is wholeheartedly supporting Bush's failed Iraq policy.

Mr. Reality said...

Shhh!!! Lamont is progressive not liberal. You're going to ruin the whole thing by calling him a liberal!!

If people find out that he is truly a liberal then he's going to lose...we need to keep calling him a progressive because it makes him sound as if he's not a liberal when he really is...

BrassBoy said...

C'mon people, I know you cazy lefties want to pretent like there's nothing wrong with this and would prefer to jump down turfgrrl's throat. But if he supports both resolutions why wouldn't he urge the Dems to vote for both.

Don't give me this consensus stuff. So he would have us believe that he supports both resolutions; would vote for the weaker one; but actually prefers the stronger resolution?

How about this: VOTE FOR THE RESOLUTION YOU BELIEVE TO BE THE BEST. So much for a backbone from little liberal Neddie...

cgg said...

Brass Boy Said: So he would have us believe that he supports both resolutions; would vote for the weaker one; but actually prefers the stronger resolution?


Part of being a Senator is making deals and compromises. Lamont seems to understand this already. It can be prolematic for campaigns, but that's how our legislative process works.

ctblogger said...

More dishonesty from Turfgrrl,

Once again, you have lowered the bar on this blog. Genghis would of never stoop to this level of dishonesty and I really you get a slap on the wrist for this.

Here's the part of his quote you left out.

"I would have supported them both, Lamont said. "You've heard me say before, I think it's time to get our front line troops out of harm's way."

Now, how's that a flip-flop? He supported both resolutions...

I thought you learned your lesson the last time you pulled this crap. You really lower the standard of quality that Genghis worked so hard to achive with thsi blog and you should be ashamed of yourself.

BrassBoy said...

Really? So what you're saying is, if you feel something is in the best interest of the country or if you feel strongly enough about something, then you should support it and speak out in favor of it, even if it means working with the other party and incurring the wrath of your own?

Interesting. I wonder if Senator Lieberman has ever heard of this theory.

BrassBoy said...

What lowers the standards of this blog is the whining from the left anytime is a post that is even moderately critical of one of their golden boys (girls), like Mr. Lamont.

Genghis has tried very hard, with some success, to make this a site that allows for discussion from both sides and posts that are critical of all views.

If you don't like the tone or wording of turfgrrl's post, that's fine. It's your choice. But her post certainly has lead to some lively discussion this morning, and isn't that the point?

nolopro said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
nolopro said...

Part of being a Senator is making deals and compromises.

Part of being an ADULT is making deals and compromises. And 2007 is a pretty agressive date. Hell.. ITS A DATE! That's better than what we have now, just staying in Iraq until Armegeddon.

tparty said...

CGG- Not only that, but Joe and Sean are flailing wildly in their hysterical attacks.

- First they said Ned Lamont voted like a Republican, then they said he was supported by "terrorizing" "left-wing weirdos."

- First they said Lamont supporters were on a "jihad or crusade," then they said we were all Lowell Weicker bear cubs.

- And just last week they said Sen. Lamont would be "too polarizing" in the senate, now they're claiming he wouldn't be polarizing enough.

I'm not certain that Sean Smith isn't on Lamont's payroll, the way he's helping this campaign.

turfgrrl said...

C'mon anti-war zealots ... either your guy is for immediate pull out, or he's not. He's campaigning on the message that he wants to pull our troops out now. Ergo, he can't be flipping over to the position of a phased withdrawal.

Don Pesci said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ctblogger said...

Bassboy,

Lively discussion. Are you high? That's bullsh*t and you know it.

I've been reading this site since Genghis started it and he's a primary reason I started mine and I can tell you for a fact that Genghis would NEVER stoop to this level of dishonesty.

Having balance is one thing (and Genghis is not even close to liberal and has always been balanced) but when you're clearly dishonest (or mislead) that's when you lower the standard of this site.

This isn't the first timr Turfgrrl pulled this type of crap and this time, it's gone too far. Clearly, Lamont did not flip-flop and you know it.

Again, here's what he said:

A second measure offered by Sens. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., would have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007. It got 13 votes.

"I would have supported them both, Lamont said. "You've heard me say before, I think it's time to get our front line troops out of harm's way."

So Brass, what is it that you don't understand with that statement? Here's the B.S. you gave us in your original comment:

"But if he supports both resolutions why wouldn't he urge the Dems to vote for both."

I though Ned just said that in his statement but maybe you didn't know that because you didn't read the article, you just jumped on the Turfgrrl bandwagon (which shows your true colors as well).

Again, this post is clearly dishonest and wrong but it seems like this is par for the course for Turfgrrl.

ctkeith said...

Congratulations GC,

Your pick of Turfgrrl as a front pager has now given this site the same ethical standards as Drudge.

Lamont was trying to convince Lieberman to at least support the Dem proposal that got 39 Democratic votes while saying he would have voted for BOTH.

There's nothing confusing here unless your campaign is based on "low information voters" like Turfgrrl

Don Pesci said...

Forget all the amendments. There are only three possibilities out there: 1) immediate and unconditional withdrawal, the Kerry/Murtha/Lamont plan; 2) conditional withdrawal involving a time limit, the majority of Democrats/Lamont plan; 3) a goal oriented conditional withdrawal involving the establishment of democratic institutions in Iraq and the creation of an effective Iraqi defense force, the Bush/Lieberman plan. That’s it. There ain’t no more.

Lamont reasonably insists that he would have supported, mostly for political reasons, plans 1 and 3. Plan 3 begins a withdrawal process, but the plan’s end point is the same as plan 1. In fact, there is little practical difference between the two; withdrawal in both cases is not predicated upon success – however it may be defined – in Iraq. The goal in both cases is withdrawal, come what may. By setting a definite non-negotiable time limit, plan 3 postpones during the time limit the almost certain results of plan 1.

And those results would be? That is what any real debate between Lieberman and Lamont should determine. Lieberman has now challenged Lamont to a debate, which might account for some recent adjustments in his political assault on Lieberman.

The Lamontites will have to adjust some of their overheated rhetoric to a few new realities: Democratic institutions in Iraq have been carefully nurtured so far, but the shoots are still tender and the roots do not go very deep; weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, which means that Bush is something less than a liar; and part of the insurgency in Iraq has been hobbled by the untimely departure of Zargawi.

turfgrrl said...

Don Pesci .. Actually Bush is on record as saying that US troop withdrawal is left to the next president. That would be the auto-pilot plan. ;)

GMR said...

Wow, reading this thread and the thread about the Malloy endorsement issue in New Haven, you might get the idea that there was some tension within the Democratic Party!

TSCowperthwait said...

cgg said - "Part of being a Senator is making deals and compromises. Lamont seems to understand this already. It can be prolematic for campaigns, but that's how our legislative process works."

Lamont is NOT a Senator, so what deals and compromises does he have to consider? Lamont clearly back-tracked from what he has been campaigning about - an immediate withdrawal. Being that this has been his message from Day One - I can't imagine how the anti-war Dems are ok with this.

Gio said...

don--Please don't use reason with the lamontites, it gets their panties in a wad.

tparty said...

turfgrrl said...
C'mon anti-war zealots ... either your guy is for immediate pull out, or he's not. He's campaigning on the message that he wants to pull our troops out now. Ergo, he can't be flipping over to the position of a phased withdrawal.

Turfgrrl-

Please point me to a single shred of evidence that supports your claim that Ned Lamont ever supported "immediate pull out" of troops.

From Ned's official website:

While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home.

That sounds exactly like "phased redeployment" to me, and is entirely consistent with how he says he would have voted on these two amendments.

If you can't back up your claim, please post a retraction of it.

And, not that I care about this blog, but I'd suggest you consider resigning from the front page if you want to save Genghis' reputation.

disgruntled_republican said...

Anonandonandon -

Remember the mickey mouse song?

M-I-C-K-E-Y, M-O-U-S-E

Now replace the letter with

S-C-H-L-E-S, I-N-G-E-R

And then you will never forget the spelling of your new junior Senator's name again.

ctkeith said...

Pesci,
You're a joke.

500 depleted chemical or biological shells that were manufactured 15 yrs ago does not WMD make even if Crazy "I took my fetus home" Rick Santorum tried to make it so.

No wonder no paper will print your crap anymore.

TSCowperthwait said...

Thirdparty -

Have you even been to Ned Lamont's website? Here is a link and portion of an article from HIS OWN website (please excuse me for posting the web address and not a link):

"Lamont supports an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from combat zones and a quick handover of security duties to Iraqis, although troops would remain there in humanitarian and support roles."

http://nedlamont.com/news/279/lieberman-faces-showdown-over-iraq

Sounds like an immediate withdrawal plan to me...

tparty said...

TCS- That's a Reuters article, not Ned's official position, which you can find here.

TSCowperthwait said...

Then why is he posting it on his website if it's not his position?

tparty said...

TSC- That's the argument you're reduced to? That you can't post a Reuters or AP article on your website unless you agree completely with every word of it? Pretty flimsy.

The article didn't even assert that Lamont supported an immediate withdrawal of troops, only an immediate redeployment from combat zones.

Still waiting for a response from Turfgrrl. I'll check back later today.

turfgrrl said...

More Lamont quotes:

In answer to What should we do, right now, in Iraq?

Move our front-line troops out of harm’s way. Start bringing the 130,000 troops who are stuck in the middle of that bloody civil war onto the periphery, and start bringing our combat troops home.

But can we maintain our reconstruction efforts without the cover that American forces at least try to maintain?

You’ve got 230,000 troops in the Iraqi army who are more or less trained, you’ve got a police force that is ridden with militias, obviously, but if the Iraqis can put together this unity government over the course of the next 30 days, anything is possible. Perhaps the Arab League, the Saudis, even the U.N. can help with some of the security functions, so reconstruction can start again.

I think Americans should remain in the background, aiding in the construction—we can’t desert the people of Iraq, but right now our front-line military presence is not making the situation better. It is stirring things up, making it worse.

disgruntled_republican said...

I have to admit, that's a very valid point TSC.

TSCowperthwait said...

Thirdparty, my point is that it makes no sense to even post an article which says Ned Lamont stands for X if that is not in fact true. That is stupid to post it on his own website if he doesn't think that. It creates the appearance that he does support an immediate withdrawal, whether that is the case or not.

I do agree with you that I misread the article somewhat because it is limited to combat zones. But seriously, it's just plain stupid to post articles on your website if they are not what you actually believe - whether you are quoted or not.

disgruntled_republican said...

And if I hear a candidate say UN forces one more time I am gonna puke!

The UN does not have "forces". IN fact, when needed, the UNited States makes up a large portion of these "forces" so what in the hell is the difference?

And going further, the last time the UN was invloved in Iraq, the Oil For Food program helped enable Saddam to be even more of a trecherous leader so why in the hell would anyone want to turn anyhting over to them?

Same captain at the helm as of last check by me.

BRubenstein said...

This thread wont mean much one way or another to the average Dem voter...what will mean more is what the AFL does in a few days on the Lieberman/Lamont race...If as i hope there is no endorsement at all ..it will be a big victory for Lamont...a endorsement for Lieberman helps him..somewhat..though the rank and file are very independant and a anti-war labor guy isnt gonna care what the union leader thinks if the leader is for Joe.

TSCowperthwait said...

Has Ned Lamont been to Iraq? Has he met with our military leaders overseeing the training of Iraqi soldiers? I mean no sarcasm here, I just want to know if he has.

If the answer is no, then how can he comment on the readiness of the Iraqi forces to assume control of Iraq's security. Quite frankly, I'd like to make sure that they are ready (not "more or less ready") before leaving them on their own.

BrassBoy said...

Maybe what Mr. Lamont meant to say is that he would vote for the resolution before he would vote against it...

Don Pesci said...

Turrf -- "Actually Bush is on record as saying that US troop withdrawal is left to the next president. That would be the auto-pilot plan. ;)"


Not really. It simply means that Bush's goals for the region, the so called war against terrorists, will last beyond his presidency. Bush is not God; some people, not all of them terrorists, think he’s the devil. How many presidents have the following wars chewed up and spit out: WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War? Fanatical Islam is resilient, no? Bush made a practical point, based on the assumption that lovely women like yourself would struggle vigorously against spending their lives wrapped in burkas. These things take time.

Don Pesci said...

CtKeith – It’s pointless, really, to dispute with one of BRubenstein’s hand puppets, but try to follow me in this one: 1) To lie is to say the thing that is not; 2) Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; 3) Five hundred bombs containing chemicals considered weapons of mass destruction dating from Hussain’s regime have been found in Iraq; 4) Bush did not lie when he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. OK?

tparty said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tparty said...

Turfgrrl-

That's your "evidence"? Your quotes do not even partially back up your assertion that Ned Lamont supported "immediate pull out" of troops.

It was before 6 in the morning when you wrote the original post, so I can cut you some slack for not drinking your morning coffee yet or something like that.

Just admit that you were completely mistaken in making the following clearly and demonstrably untrue claims:

1) That Lamont somehow "flip-flopped" on his position on Iraq, and

2) That Lamont ever was "for immediate pull out" of troops.

Both of these claims are absolutely false. If you made a mistake, admit it. Post retractions of them or back them up.

AnonAndOnAndOn said...

dis_rep: Thanks for the spelling/music lesson.

I think BR just made a good point. This thread won't matter much to the "average Democratic voter." Heck, this blog doesn't either!!

The average Democratic voter is WORKING today, doesn't stay up all night trying to "one-up" blog comments, and isn't active in anyone's campaign, be it Lieberman, Lamont, DeStef, or Malloy.

And... I'd venture to say that the average Democratic voter isn't even paying attention to the fact that there's a primary in August. (Confession: I'm not an average Democrat, nor a Dem at all, but my wife is.)

Political scientists and historians will have plenty to write about at the end of this year. And I think the untold story will be the shift of the primary date from September to August. That puts the advantage (as this idiot sees it) in the hands of the more motivated Lamont footsoldiers.

I don't claim to know the mind of the average Democratic voter, but I think they'll be less represented in this primary than ever before.

CTAnalyst said...

MikeCT, CTBlogger you may be unfair in calling turfgrrl dishonest. You are right in pointing out that her posts are not accurate, yet this may be because of poor critical thinking and not willful dishonesty.

She appears to accept the talking points of Lieberman supporters that Lamont has called for immediate pullout of all the troops. My understanding if Lamont’s position is that it is much more nuanced, calling for a gradual, and well thought out reduction, starting now, but proceeding at such a pace as to facilitate the success of the new Iraqi government.

Turfgrrl’s thinking illustrates a common flaw of black and white, or binary thinking, trying to reduce complicated geopolitical issues to a yes or no answer. Such thinking often leads to people making poor decisions in their lives. At it’s worst it brings up yes or no questions like, “Has Turfgrrl stopped abusing children?”

Don Pesci does a slightly better job by suggesting that there are only three possibilities out there. However, he also gets stuck in repeating the misleading talking point that ‘Lieberman has now challenged Lamont to a debate’. Actually, Lieberman accepted an invitation to a debate, after having turned down quite a few others. The one that he did accept came days after Lamont had already agreed to participate in the debate.

Nolopolo is right in pointing out that it isn’t just senators that need to understand how to make deals and compromises, but it is all adults that need to learn how to behave effectively in a complicated world. This helps illustrate the faulty thinking of TSCowperthwait when they comment that Mr. Lamont is not currently a Senator and based on this suggests that he does not have to consider deals and compromises.

As a final note, while this discussion did start off with faulty information and faulty thinking, it is good to see that it has mostly avoided the narcissistic and self indulgent personal attacks that have plagued the blog so much recently.

Let us hope that we can all take a more analytical view toward politics here in Connecticut.

ctblogger said...

Turfgrrl,

You really put yourself in a corner now. Your dishonesty has been exposed by thirdparty and like Lieberman, your grasping at straws.

Show some class and either debunk thirdparty's claims or just admit that you lied.

ctblogger said...

CTAnalyst,

The post is dishonest and par for the course for Turfgrrl, it's that simple.

Also, given the fact that Trufgrrl has refused to address the misleading post speaks volumes.

This isn't as complex as you're making it out to be. Trufgrrl mislead the readers on this blog and it's pathetic.

BRubenstein said...

Ladies and Gentlemen...the AFL is meeting in their convention in a few days...we should discuss the ramifications for the 2 primaries as both will be materially effected in the reluts of the convention instead of splitting "hairs" on the verbiage of what Lamont said or has said in the recent past...

WHat Lamont meant by what he said above doesnt mean a "tinker's dam" to anyone except a few bloggers here ( who are either paid joementum staffers or republicans) and some conservative dems who wish Lamont trouble.The abti-war folks will still vote for Lamont...the conservative dems will still vote for Joe..The far bigger "play" is what the AFL will do in regards to endorsements.

Don Pesci said...

CtAnalyst – If Lamont’s “nuanced” position “calling for a gradual and well thought out reduction” is predicated on a withdrawal pace that will “facilitate the success of the new Iraqi government,” how does Lamont’s position differ from Bush’s or Lieberman’s?

Perhaps the debate that Lieberman now has accepted will clear all these questions up. Let the debate begin!

Don Pesci said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
RockCatChick83 said...

Changing the subject just a bit...

Chris Murphy refuses to enforce his progressive credentials.

He says that there needs to be a change in Washington, yet he is flip-flopping on who he is endorsing in our nationally-watched Senate primary. In the Hartford Courant last week, Murphy spokesgirl Sarah Merriam said that Murphy will endorse whoever the Democratic candidate is. Funny that on Joementum's website it lists Murphy as having already endorsed Joementum. See for yourself at Lieberman's webiste: http://www.joe2006.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=14&Itemid=29

If Chris wants the help of us progressives in the Fall, you are going to have to get Lieberman to take your name off his website as one of his supporters. And by the way Chris, how would you have voted on the resolution to give the President the authority to go to Iraq?

ctkeith said...

Pesci,

You're really sad.

You're telling everyone here that the Administration now believes they've found "the smoking gun" that proves they were right all along about WMD and instead of calling the biggest news conference in history they gave this to Crazy Rick Santorum?

NICE TRY,LMAO.

Marv5920 said...

I agree with Rock Cat Chick's post. Murphy should be taking a clear stand on the war and Lamont.

I think it's a no brainer now that Lamont will be on the Dem line for Senator in Novermber. Why does Murph not just come out and publicly endorse him? Murphy has been on the front page of a bunch of major papers schmoozing with Lieberman. When is Chris going to stop kissing Joe butt and join with us progressives?

I have tried to post suggestions like this on Murphy's weblog and they seem to get censored by his webmaster (Mizz Merriam?). So much for "new ideas." Murphy has a campaign blog that does not allow any constructive criticism on it. That is tantamount to blasphemy in the blog community.

Chris: you have my vote but it is going to be tough to get me to volunteer for a guy that doesn't seem to be willing to stand up and fight with us to get the bums out of Washington!

IAmBatman537 said...

Same thing has happened to me when I try to post on Murphy's blog. Total censorship! I'm outraged. This is ridiculous.

I'm helping Farrell in the 4th. She definitely has the best shot of the 3.

IAmBatman537 said...

Same thing has happened to me when I try to post on Murphy's blog. Total censorship! I'm outraged. This is ridiculous.

I'm helping Farrell in the 4th. She definitely has the best shot of the 3.

Don Pesci said...

CtKeith -- Go back and read ... awww forget it. Turff -- best posting ever. Remember, the first rule of good journalism is: Don't let’em frighten you.

Derby Conservative said...

From Ned's official website:

While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home.

Is he serious? Agree with the war or not, what Ned suggests here outlines a suicide mission for the troops left behind as trainers. This is the reality of what would happen in this case:

Pull out 100,000 troops and leave a few thousand behind to train Iraqi security forces. Since these Iraqi forces are not yet up to capacity or the level of training necessary, the few thousand Americans left behind will be systematically cut down by the insurgency.

I have to quote the great Fred Sanford here..."Lamont, you big dummy!"

bluecoat said...

DG: UN forces are very good at peace keeping and nation building and even when our guys put on a blue helmet one of our guys are always in charge of our guys; the war in classical terms is long over - not quite when Bush almost crash landed on the AL catching the fourth wire instead of aborting the landing per protocaol with plenty of fuel but certaimly once SH was captured when the US should have asked for his ceremonial and unconditional surrender - we are building a nation among violence and disorder. CENTCOM Commander John Abizaid (who happens to be an expert in Middle Eastern culture) has said long ago you can't kill alll the terrorists

ctkeith said...

Pesci,

The first rule is honesty.

Maybe you were taliking about Rove or Rushes Rules but since your garbage seems to be getting published less and less maybe those who own the presses are "getting it" too.


PS,Could you please link to one serious news source that agrees with your and Santorums take on this WMD story.LOL

disgruntled_republican said...

blucoat-

I know all that stuff...my point is when a politician says, and I am paraprasing here, "lets get our guys out and turn things over to the UN for peacekeeping", who in the hell do they think the UN is?

bluecoat said...

the bottom line is that many are frustrated - and quite frankly it includes Republicans in DC who just don't do the press release - but Bush is in charge and they are trying to move the stubborn bastard into something rational instead of his lofty rhetoric: I keep going back to John Warner's resoultion, non-binding as it was, that said we want change Mr. President, we want chanege, no more "stay the course" crap but it was in politics speak!!!

manwich said...

Lieberman spoke in East Hartford today. He made plenty of remarks on the war and our future military strength.

Even though he supports the war in Iraq, I was surprised by the language he used. It sounded more like a Bush speech than a Hillary speech. He called our enemy "Radical Islamists" (which most democrats refuse to do) and called Zarqawi a "devil". When was the last time you heard a democrat suggest Al-Qaida was evil? He surprised me.

bluecoat said...

Bush and Liberman both bring their religions to the political platform and that's why I don't care for either of them...

TSCowperthwait said...

"UN forces are very good at peace keeping and nation building..."

The UN has 15 current peacekeeping operations. Outside of the current mission in Liberia, I cannot think of any other missions which have been successful. And don't get me started on the cost of these missions.

bluecoat said...

TSC: there cost is actually often quite competitive and a blue helmet is not an occupying force; you might recall that when the US's ass got in a bind we asked the UN to come in and help out with the first election in Iraq; I ain't saying it's the answer but cuuremtly in Iraq is a coalition of the only the willing if you buy into Rummy's rhetoric or a coalition of the coerced and bribed if you buy into Kerry's - either way it's mostly US and some Brits; if we want peace in the Middle East we have to consider how the inhabitants of the Middle East and their close neighbors in Europe view us these days - the USSR is gone and Europe no longer relies on us for protection....

TSCowperthwait said...

"Ladies and Gentlemen...the AFL is meeting in their convention in a few days...we should discuss the ramifications for the 2 primaries as both will be materially effected in the reluts of the convention instead of splitting "hairs" on the verbiage of what Lamont said or has said in the recent past..."

That's from BRubenstein everybody. The same man who spent countless comments yesterday debating whether Senator Joseph Lieberman distorted the truth by not referring to the save the sub base crew by name. I'm disappointed, BR, I really thought you understood the implications of this thread.

Unfortunately, I must admit that I do not know enough about the current labor union thought-process to embellish you with a discussion of the upcoming AFL vote.

disgruntled_republican said...

so bluecoat-

Perhaps, as it seems you suggest, we should turn over the operations to the UN. OK, so round 150,000 blue helmets, a few thousand flags that are stored on OUR SOIL and we'll write them a check to pay for it.

You seem to be consistantly missing my point. The UN is just as corrupt as any country is and their Army or "peacekeeping" force is the United States of America with blue helmets. Whether it is an occupying force or not, does not change these facts.

As for the elections in Iraq, of coarse we brought in the UN (non-militaraly) to run the elections...can you8 imagine if we oversaw it....I can hear it now...."it was all rigged".

C'mon

TSCowperthwait said...

Thank you, Disgruntled Republican. And to add to this, I must continue to stress that the UN has an abysmal success rate when it comes to nation-building. At this stage, what purpose would the UN forces serve in Iraq? Do people honestly believe that different sects will suddenly stop attacking each other if UN troops are there instead of US troops?

bluecoat said...

Everybody has a dismal record in building nations; give me a break;

and we only brought the UN into the elections when our ass got in a bind,

Saddam should have been tried at the Hague but we threw our nose up in the air at the international community on that and now we have a circus...

Iraq has been a disaster at every turn since Bush pulled the trigger...and the United States military for all its might power and excellence can't pull us out of this on their own....you might recall the Henry Kissinger got us out of Vietnam and it wasn't always with the military's blessing...mining Haiphong Harbor and a few other things scared the shit out of the Pentagon but it brought the North (China reaaly) to the table...

TSCowperthwait said...

Bluecoat, I just don't think that the UN can do any better (and will only do worse) than we have. I have seen them fail in too many other missions. I am disappointed to say that, but it is what I believe. If the UN can continue to succesffuly change Liberia than maybe my opinion of the UN's peacekeeping mission's will begin to change.

bluecoat said...

and TSC I am not missing your point at all - to a Middle Easterner a blue helmet is much different than a helmet with an American flag...it's symbolic and symbolism does make a difference in different cultures....simply growing a beard got a former colleague of mine (when I was in grad school) got an appointment with the Shah of Iran - it was dumb luck; he had given up trying to get to see the Shah; thought his career was over becuase the appointment wasn't happening and a relationship with the Shah was his mission; so he grew a beard because he always wnated to try it and had nothing else to do; the next thing you know he was invited to a party where the Shah approcahed him and said " I see you have decide to join us..."

bluecoat said...

and I am talking as an option UN forces under US command - ALWAYS when it's our men and women...

ProgCT said...

Its funny that the warmongers need to stoop to attacks like this one by turfgrrl. Very amusing shows she nor the other warmongers have any real plan either to keep their warmongers in office or to win the war.

cgg said...

manwich, it's a given that Al Qaeda is evil. Democrats by and large don't feel any need to state the obvious in every speech.

bluecoat said...

screwed up there as it was DG that says I am missing his point by I think you get my point or maybe you don't; but it ain't all about guns and blwing things up...

ctkeith said...

Hey Pesci,

Heres the latest from the AP on you and Rick Santorums Big WMD breakthrough.

WASHINGTON Intelligence officials are casting doubt on the usefulness of hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq.

Two G-O-P lawmakers -- Senator Rick Santorum and Congressman Peter Hoekstra (HOOK'-struh) -- had circulated a one-page summary of a military intelligence report. It said coalition forces had recovered about 500 munitions with degraded mustard or sarin agents, and more could be discovered around Iraq.

But intelligence officials say the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War, and that an assessment of them concluded they're so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

Former weapons inspector David Kay says the sarin produced from the 1980's would no longer be dangerous. Says Kay: "It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point."

bluecoat said...

there's more unaccounted for nuclear material right here in the US than there ever was in Iraq - crappy paperwork....

bluecoat said...

the latest on IraqJun 23, 12:41 PM EDT State of Emergency Declared in Baghdad By SINAN SALAHEDDIN Associated Press Writer
and on attempted terror crime Jun 23, 12:55 PM EDT Terror Suspects Sought Ties With al-Qaida By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN Associated Press Writer

TSCowperthwait said...

ctkeith, don't worry about what Senator Santorum says about things. I get the impression that Dems will not have to deal with him much longer.

Bluecoat, I've never made my support of the Iraq conflict simply about "guns and blowing things up." I believe that diplomacy goes a long way. Recall that I mentioned that the UN has been succesful to date in Liberia, where they did not go in with guns blazing. I'm not all about guns and blowing up.

When the US military invasion of Iraq resulted in the destruction of the government in Iraq, I believed that the role of rebuilding the country should have been turned over to the Department of State with the Department of Defense proving security and military training. I just thought you should know that.

bluecoat said...

TSC: understood; and I should clarify that peacekeeping is different than nation building since we never split hairs on CLP; and there's been nothing like the Iraq situation in history despite the comparisons to post WWII Europe, post civil War US, post Revolutionary WAR Colonies and whatever cockamamie other comparisons have been brought on by the neocons; I am unfamiliar with the plans at State - that were never used anyway - but somebody was going to be in uniform and state doesn't have any folks like that...

MikeCT said...

RockCatChick83 & Marv5920,

Chris Murphy has had no "flip flops" on the Senate race. Most Democratic leaders in the state and all of the Democratic Congressional candidates endorsed Lieberman months ago. In response to questions from CT Blogger and others about whether Murphy and other Dems would endorse the Democratic Senate nominee or support a Lieberman independent run, Murphy's campaign said unequivocally that he would support the Democratic nominee (ie, if Joe goes independent, he's on his own). Murphy deserves credit for saying so (no such response from Farrell yet).

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Marv5920 said... "Chris: you have my vote.."

Before anyone actually votes for that snake they should check with Democrats that know him and do so in private so they'll tell you what they really think.

Call around in Southington or Wolcott.

The guy's a viper.

Chris MC said...

I read that original post and the title turfgrrl posted, and I am genuinely having difficulty understanding the demands for turfgrrl's cyber head on a, er, post.

She opines that this is a flip-flop in the title, and adds a single sentence saying a bit more to that effect, and you guys react as if she's called him a pedophile. Or a Republican. Or something.

She linked to Pazniokas' Courant article so we can parse it. So parse it. Expand on it, discuss his position, get some information about the debate over what and how to withdraw, and so on.

I'm at a loss what we should do, and would be very interested in an increasingly informed discussion about where we are at and what the hell to do about it. We should be getting better and better informed, not more and more predictable and emotional in our positions.

If it isn't a flip-flop, fine. I for one don't see a whole hell of a lot of difference between the Murtha position and the neo-con position, at this stage of the game. I suspect it is because there is no way out. The whole issue over setting a date certain might bear some discussion, but maybe it is a bad idea. But beyond that, how much daylight is there between the options espoused in Washington? Again, I really don't know, but my sense is not so much.

If there is, it really is up to Lamont (and I am suggesting his ardent supporters) to explain it to us. The man wants to go to the U.S. Senate, and I think we can all agree at this point, he has a shot. So, what does he propose, and how is that different from Lieberman's position?

DisNoir36 said...

Good thing it now appears the Iraqis are making up our mind for us. They're considering options which include kicking our butts out of their country since we don't seem to want to leave.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1804845,00.html

On the issue of foreign troops in Iraq, the document vows to "move quickly and seriously" to build up Iraq's security forces so that they "can guarantee security" and thus "pave the way for the withdrawal of multinational forces".

I guess that now means we can begin discussing why Lieberman is bad for CT in other areas besides his stubborn position on staying indefinately in Iraq.