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.
7 comments:
?
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).
I guess by bluecoats calculations we won Vietnam too.
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...
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.
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,
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...
Post a Comment