Friday, June 23, 2006

Lamont on Iraq

Colin McEnroe has an interesting take on what the Lieberman campaign is calling a Lamont flip-flop on the issue of the war.
So Joe has a rock solid position, and I don't. That doesn't make Lieberman right and me wrong. The fact that he has an unwavering position about the biggest military and diplomatic mess in American history since Vietnam -- a mess he helped make and has consistently helped sustain -- does not make him better than those of us who didn't want to this to begin with and now cannot figure out what to do.

He is steadfastly wrong. Lamont is kind of meanderingly right.

Democrats in general are shaky on the war. Who can blame them? They didn't really want it, and now they have no idea what to do with it. The only Democrat who seems very, very sure of his position on Iraq is... Joe Lieberman. About the only thing a lot of Democrats can agree on is that Lieberman and the Republicans he was lauded by yesterday are, in fact, wrong. It gets complicated from there.

The "flip-flop" angle is getting some press, and may be the most useful argument Lieberman has come up with against Lamont so far. Not surprising, considering what a story it was in 2004. But whether it'll play with Democratic primary voters--many of whom are similarly conflicted over Iraq and remember the sting of John Kerry being tarred as a flip-flopper by George W. Bush--is an important question.

It could backfire. Deja vu to 2004--with Lieberman in Bush's role. Democrats may end up concluding that Lieberman is just a Republican who can get union endorsements, and turn away from him.

Then again, maybe it'll help him stop his slide. But I have my doubts.

Source

McEnroe, Colin. "The Big Sandy." Colin McEnroe: To Wit (blog) 23 June, 2006.

51 comments:

bluecoat said...

oppose what war??? the war is over: the tyrannical leader has been captured and has been turned over to a justice system - and admittedly a kangaroo court would be better - and no offense to the Aussies because they have been our steadfast allies in fighting terror where it needed to be fought, the country was under our political control, and now we've hande it off to a new government while we help them with security and other stuff....the argument is specious on this...but the dead Americans are real as can be...

Genghis Conn said...

?

bluecoat said...

GC: I am going to guess what that (?) means; there are certain principles of war and they need to remain rather than continue to be violated in the political rhetoric; victory has been achieved in Iraq long ago when Saddam was captured - he should have been asked to surrender unconditionally and agreed to order all to do the same; instead he's declaring himself the leader of iraq almost everyday; but in any event, now it's about building a nation...that will be success and it needs to be defined...even Bush is now saying the violence won't end; how's that???

bluecoat said...

and under your new rule GC maybe folks can say why they think I am wrong instead of whatever.....and then describe what they think is going on in Iraq...

TrueBlueCT said...

Joe Lieberman is committed to a permanent American presence in Iraq. Of course he won't come out and publicly state such a position, but that's where he and his Neo-Con buddies are at.

Read up about the Huge new American Embassy in Iraq. What do you think a massive compound like that suggests to the Arab world?

This is not to mention the 14 "enduring" military bases we are constructing in Iraq.

Am I the only one who believes the Iraqi government will only succeed if somehow it's not seen as a puppet of Bush, the Neo-Cons, and America?

This is why the Murtha plan makes sense. It communicates a clear something to the Iraqis, that we are not there to stay, and that we have no permanent designs on their country, and most particularly their oil.

Finally, what would it take to bring in the United Nations or the Arab League? A small amount of humility and a genuine request for cooperative assistance?.... Anything has got to be better than the present course.

ctblogger said...

The only thing getting press is Turfgrrl's dishonest post from this morning.

This is the second time Turfgrrl has mislead the readers and it's shameless and again, speaks volumes.

Lamont's position on the war is perfectly clear and in the Courant piece, he clearly stated that he supports BOTH Democratic proposals.

It's amazing how people who never saw Ned speak once, can claim that he's now some type of flip-flopper.

Trufgrrl, we're still waiting. Personally, it's amazing that you're still a poster on this site. Your dishonestly brings shame to this blog (and this is the second time you've purposely mislead the readers with your dishonest writing).

ctkeith said...

I guess by bluecoats calculations we won Vietnam too.

turfgrrl said...

ctblogger,

I really appreciate your blog-police enthusiasm, but if you spent more time reading what I posted, you wouldn't draw such misconceptions, or apparently succumb to the ersatz notion of being misled.

TrueBlueCT said...

Turfgirl--

This morning's post was purposefully misleading. Shame on you.

This was the second time you've coupled inflammatory headlines with selectively chosen portions of balanced articles to push your pro-Lieberman agenda.

Now I don't care if you are pro-Joe. But the manner in which you are blogging is dishonest and offensive. Where is your apology to the community?

turfgrrl said...

Truebluect ... Surely you can do better than type in the same shrill complaints that ctblogger posted? Care to fact check your post against what I actually wrote?

ctblogger said...

Turfgrrl,

It is you who are dishonest and this IS the second time you've done so (the first was when you changed your headline to a poorly written hit piece to wrote).

I clearly know what you posted and it was not only misleading but dishonest since you left out a key part of Lamont's comment where he supported both Democratic resolutions.

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."


Myself, thirdparty and several other posters call you out on your dishonesty and you had nothing to say.

To add insult to your already pathetic case, you claimed said this:

"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."

Now, thirdparty, myself, and countless others dared you top point to a quote where Ned Lamont stated this and you couldn't. In other words, you were just making stuff up. All you did was read Mark's headline, read a couple of paragraphs and ran with your silly and misleading post.

Also, you were pointed to Ned's official statement (which he has claimed all along. I would know, I've seen him say this several times in person!)

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.

Oh yeah, that sounds like an immediate withdrawl to me.

We're still waiting for you to show us evidence of these two points:

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.

You see, when you blog and you can't back up what you say, you're considered a joke. If I were Genghis, I'd boot you out as a poster sine this is not the first time you've stoop to this level of dishonesty.

Still waiting for an answer...

TrueBlueCT said...

Answer AND an apology, please...

turfgrrl said...

ctblogger ... tsk, tsk ... when Lamont says:

"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.

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."


It shows that you don't know who to read, click, or comprehend. You can interpret whatever you want out of Lamont's statements, but don't whine when someone arrives at a different conclusion.

And if you read my posts, you'll get a sense of deja vu, since Lamont's quote above was posted once before. You may want to reread Lamont's website too, with a slightly less addled fervor. You may, in fact, be surprised.

turfgrrl said...

truebluect ... man this is getting old. I'm sorry you have such difficulty reading. There, feel better?

CTAnalyst said...

CTBlogger, in the previous thread I suggested that your implications that turfgrrl is being intentionally dishonest may be inaccurate. You continue this approach in this thread. However, her response here appears to illustrate that it may well be an inability to comprehend complicated issues that is causing her to write as inaccurately as she does.

In her most recent comment, she focuses on Mr. Lamont’s desire to ‘Move our front-line troops out of harm’s way’ as part of her argument that Mr. Lamont wants an immediate withdrawal, while overlooking his statement that ‘I think Americans should remain in the background’.

The section she quotes actually illustrates why Mr. Lamont has been consistent in his positions and not flip-flopping the way she alleges.

It appears as if some of her problems come from a tendency to over simplify complex issues. As an example, since Mr. Lamont believes that it is prudent to move our front-line troops out of harm’s way, she makes an incorrect assumption that this means he is for an immediate withdrawal.

All of this said, I don’t want to give you grounds to critique my arguments for the either-or thinking that negatively affects turfgrrl. It may well be that her inaccurate posts are a result of both willful dishonesty and an inability to comprehend complicated issues.

LitchfieldAngelina said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
turfgrrl said...

ctanalyst -- I ignored your rather pompous analysis of my ability to read, formulate an opinion and express it, before, but alas, you've decided to join the fray once more.

So let's see if I can comprehend your argument. It might just be too nuanced for lil' ole me to get, but I'll sure try.

You hinge your, er, complexity argument on "I think Americans should remain in the background’." which you claim I overlooked. Why, how observant of you! You clearly read that line as saying something along the lines of US Troops while i interpreted it to mean, Haliburton .. both being Americans you see.

But then you go on, to claim with the utmost sincerity that "It appears as if some of her problems come from a tendency to over simplify complex issues". Yipes ... problems, who knew? I used to think simplifying complex problems was a good thing... one that earns me a living. Well, now that you've settled that, I will just have to leave those complex problems alone, in their ... complexity.

Of course Lamont is for immediately withdrawing troops, you want to say out of harm's way. Well where would that be exactly? Lamont then answers the question with "start bringing our combat troops home." Heavens to Mergatroid, is that statement too complex for me to parse? Why, let me be a bit disingenuous here, and say that perhaps the vociferous complaints have more to do with spinning some damage control. Hrmm, no, that borders on accusing these misled posters of actually coordinating their responses, I mean that is awfully presumptuous of me, it's not like they post the same thing right after each other ... oh wait.

Well now, I'm glad we've had this dialog. You've certainly helped me understand the complexity of the situation. But I can't resist thinking, in my rather simplistic way of course, that as long as anyone posts anything critical of Lamont these zombie whelps of outrage will just keep on popping up.

BRubenstein said...

ever notice that when Turfgrrl gets caught she gets personal...her quote " zombie whelps of outrage..: is done intentionally to be dismissive and to dehunanize anyone ( usually progressive bloggers) who disagree with her....her "act" is getting quite old.

I think her misleading posts are due more to wilful dishonesty than an inaccurate reasoning of complex issues.

TrueBlueCT said...

more and more I'm getting the feeling that this site has jumped the proverbial shark. It sure isn't holding much of my interest anymore.

Honest political argument is a lot of fun. The bullshit manuevering that Turfgirl engages in is too reminiscent of Ann Coulter and other right-wing loons.

LitchfieldAngelina said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BRubenstein said...

angelina...you are already represented...there are 2 good republican conservatives here..

Chris MC said...

This is why the Murtha plan makes sense. It communicates a clear something to the Iraqis, that we are not there to stay, and that we have no permanent designs on their country, and most particularly their oil.
TB, I am with you up to here. The fact of the matter is, we do have designs on their oil.

I doubt you'll disagree too strongly that this war is in no small part about oil. That is what the bases are doing there. That is what that embassy is doing there.

Finally, what would it take to bring in the United Nations or the Arab League? A small amount of humility and a genuine request for cooperative assistance?.... Anything has got to be better than the present course.

Unfortunately, that ain't happening. Nobody wanted in on this in the first place, and they definitely haven't responded to pleadings after the invasion was successful. Nobody is going to commit political suicide nor send their armed forces into that meat grinder just to give us some relief.

And the Arab league? The Egyptians? The Jordanians? The Saudis? The Syrians? That just makes no sense at all, unless you want a wildfire war to engulf the middle east in about a week - which is why the Arabs aren't going near it.

Rell is going down said...

Two things,

On Aug 8th I will vote for Lieberman. He has done a lot for CT in my point of view, and his stance on one issue is not going to deter me from that. However, I do not think Ned Lamont was flip flopping in this instance, and I think democrats should refrain from using that term. It is a republican way of talking about things, and if we start talking like this, it will onlu hurt us. Let Lamont push his anti-war agenda and see if it catches, but don't acuse him of flip-floping, because he seems to be pretty steadfast in his approach to winning this primary. I am voting for Lieberman because I don't think CT should risk losing a well respecteed democratic senator over his stance on one issue.

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?

LitchfieldAngelina said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CTAnalyst said...

Yes, turfgrrl, you continue to exhibit poor comprehension. You are beginning to convince me that you are being willfully deceitful as opposed to simply failing to comprehend complicated geopolitics.

You continue to assert, with no documentation, that “Lamont is for immediately withdrawing troops”. You have repeatedly been asked to backup that assertion and have failed to do so. I am beginning to believe this reflects a juvenile, “I can’t hear you” mentality where you chose to ignore anything that doesn’t fit your worldview.

This seems to be reflected in your tortured interpretation suggesting that when Mr. Lamont talks about Americans staying in the background that he was talking about Haliburton (sic) Halliburton had not been mentioned in the quote that you posted and it is a real stretch to suggest that is what he was talking about.

So, yes, you appear to be either incapable or unwilling to look seriously at a very serious issue.

Likewise, your suggestion that Ned’s comment that we start bringing out combat troops home ignores the first half of the sentence that says we should be moving troops onto the periphery. You make an unsupported leap from starting to bring home combat troops, to some sort of belief that all troops, not only combat, but logistical, etc, should be brought home immediately.

So, you continue to fail to address very serious flaws with your assertions, and instead resort to ridicule which borders on paranoia. If people pick apart your failed logic, it must be some sort of conspiracy by supporters of Mr. Lamont. It is a convenient rhetorical device, but it does make your ability to carry on intelligent discussion even further questionable.

cgg said...

I think Lamont gets so much attention because there is so much interest in his race generally.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

cgg said... "
I think Lamont gets so much attention because there is so much interest in his race generally."


Only in here.

Get out a little more often; most people are more oblivious than you might think.

Rell is going down said...

This is a change of subject, but I think it has to be said. Can we now admit that Malloy is clearly the candidate going negative in the gubernatorial race? I just read the article in the Norwalk Hour from yesterday, and his campaign is throwing out terms like "thuggery" and bullying. There is no evidence to back these statements up. Actually, the evidence all points to DeStefano. There is a quote from the President of the local saying they never voted to endorse and that his quotes are made up. I said weeks ago that Malloy would have to revert to negative tactics because he was so far behind in polls, and people on this blog were all over me for it. If saying your oppenent reverts to "thuggery", with absolutely no evidence, isn't negative campaigning, what is?

bluecoat said...

ctkeith: in military terms, we did win Vietnam and the United States Military needs to be proud of everybody but it's leaders at the top - Westmoreland et. al - who served with honor at that time...

bluecoat said...

I don't know whether turffy is being intellectually dishonest in her posts favoring the DLC candidiates or just showing her unknown to her bias; but either way she has hurt her own credability with her lack of objectivity and balance, which once was pretty high with me...and changing the title way back was OK with me BTW...

bluecoat said...

and the race in CT - specifically Shays v. Farrell and Lamont v. Lieberman made the PBS News Hour last night with a special spot and even analysis by Shields and Brooks - the link wasn't up yet as of this post..very well done for a national/international audience to see....

BRubenstein said...

Anglina...you will need to take thatup with them...I found bot Disgruntled and Quinn...to be very very competant in outling their views...and dont forget their are alot of other conservative bloggers in here also..

Your side is represented very well...just as my side is.

bluecoat said...

and LA: if you go back a month or two you will see that GC called for co-contributors to this blog - it was an open process.....I also see in tommorow's CT section of the NYT that JDS is going to be blogging regulary on what he considers to be a independent blogsite but I didn't recognize the independent blogger's name....

BRubenstein said...

Ladies and Gentlemen...the AFL is meeting in a few days...if JDS gets the endorsement and the unions work for him then i think he will beat DM...if the AFL doesnt endorse..expect a horse race.

Additionally,Im for Lamont as folks know...but i am troubled by only 2 unions endorsing him to this point...If the AFL endorses Lieberman then that is a huge body blow to Lamont...If the convention endorses no one...stays neutral...( which is what i hope)..then Lamont once again pulled off a huge win for him.

bluecoat said...

I don't know if Howard Dean helps or hurts his party but here is againDean Repeats Call for Iraq Troop Drawdown and three cheers for Bush ( I think) because I saw a short headline that said he signed an exec order stating that fed funds could be used for eminent domain takings to support a road or hospital only but then...
and locally MOrano in running for office By:Alex Wood, Journal Inquirer 06/23/2006 and of course Tacco is fighting his legislative subpoena...

bluecoat said...

here's the Tacco linkSullivan fighting subpoena Legislature, judiciary at odds over calls for judge to testify - he should have just agreed to testify instead of forcing the subpoena and the showdown from my perspective - but I am not a lawyer...and theRowland Cottage For Sale Bantam Lake Site Expected To Go On The Market June 24, 2006 By DAVE ALTIMARI And JON LENDER, Courant Staff Writers so I wonder who will pay more than market price for this one!!!

bluecoat said...

dman it one more try on the Tacco link
and while I am at it:McCain denounces GOP for spending, government growth
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD AP Political Writer

bluecoat said...

BTW GC: I don't know if you link to the "Lieberman campaign..calling a Lamont flip-flop" was a subtle hint to turrfyy or not....but it should be...

ctblogger said...

CTAnalyst,

Your giving Trufgrrl too much credit. She's being dishonest and this is not the first time this person has pulled garbage like this on this blog. You cherry picked an article to suit her own purposes and it's wrong and deceitful.

And Trufgrrl,

In your arrogance, you still fail to answer these questions. Lets try this again:

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.

Is this your response?

"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.

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."


That's an immediate withdrawl? Are you serious? You, like neo-cons, have no idea about the military or how they miltiary operates.

Trying to use this quote to your "flip-flop" theory is garbage and you know it. This type of garbage (and your cheesy post) is a common pattern for you and the readers who've witnessed your last act of dishonesty knwo what I'm talking about.

Trufgrrl=cherry-picking articles+mislead readers with outrageous headlines.

You fail to acknowledge Lamont stating that he supports both Democratic purposals because it didn't fit into your attack post. Also, your quote from Lamont has NOTHING to do with an immediate withdrawal but maybe your too ignorant (and/or partisan) to comprehend that.

You lower the bar on this blog with your behavior and it's sad.

bluecoat said...

and Rellisgoingdown: I certainly see Malloy going negative, just as I see his fellow DLCers Farrell and Liberman going negative; Joe's Joe and I'll be glad when he is gone regardless of who replaces him and Farrell just plain does not cut it anymore for me; I didn;t vote for her or Shays last time around...for me there is a difference between honestly exposing the opponent's record, political counter offensives/ counter attacks and going negative by being intellectually dishonest, deceiptful and outright lying...

bluecoat said...

and ctblogger: there was this statement also in the Courant articleLamont said Thursday night that he still supported an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from combat and would have voted for setting a firm deadline.,, whch I have pulled out of context but It's true. The problem with Lamont is he has no military eaxperience and he has no military advisers...he's learning as he goes along or he is making it up....I will take him over Joe but I would prefer Schlesinger who has proved eqaully naive on military affairs...there are enough guys in the Senate, including Republicans, who will continue to work to bring Iraq to a successful conclusion...Schlesinger and Lamont will play follow the leader as they are doing today....it ain't great but it;s bettter than Joe...

bluecoat said...

or "Simon says"...

truth squad said...

ctblogger, please show me where in this sentence that it says Lamont would support the kerry amendment.

Lamont was "sympathetic" to the Kerry proposal, Swan said, but "he wouldn't necessarily vote for it, because he wants to be a uniter among Democrats."

bluecoat said...

can't find it in that sentence but it might be in these two from the Courant article: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."
like i said Lamont is a rookie while Joe has been at it for years...

truth squad said...

very true bluec. my point is that the sentence I mention is from the morning courant article and the sentence you mention is from the evening article. therefor there is evidence of wavering and not being clear as to what his stance actually is.

bluecoat said...

Joe's stance of "stay the course" is meaningless so it's a non issue for me...Joe wavers all the time to please the crowd and stay in his government job..he can't even commit to backing the winner of the primary to his fellow Democrats...but he'll committ for soldiers sailors airman and marines to an indefinite undefined "stay the course" mission that he says is integral to the war on terror...

TrueBlueCT said...

Does anyone know where Joe Lieberman is this weekend? I want to ask him if he regrets not having served in the military, and if he ever encouraged his son Matt to wear the uniform.

If Lieberman wants to be the most gungho war-hawk within the Democratic Party, it would be good to hear directly from him why no one in his family has ever gone through boot camp.

TrueBlueCT said...

But Oops! I forgot a big something. Joe Lieberman doesn't hold public forums.

Can anyone recall another Connecticut politician who has failed to hold publicly scheduled events? It burns me up that the media is giving Joe a free pass on this issue.

ctblogger said...

bluecoat,

Lamont has never wavered and has always supported both proposals which was something you would get from reading Trufgrrl's post.

She should just be lucky I couldn't tell her this in person during the Malloy meeting today...

bluecoat said...

I already said that about his backing of the two plans but it doesn't discount what i said...it's not my fault if lamont has no military experience or advisors...