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
27 comments:
At least Lamont is good at dissimulation. He should make a fine politician. Does Kos know about this?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
TCS- That's a Reuters article, not Ned's official position, which you can find here.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
Post a Comment