Friday, August 25, 2006

Shays Cites Lamont's reasoning on Iraq Timetable for withdrawal

Today's Washington Post reports that Rep. Chris Shays now favors a timetable for troop withdrawal and feels that most of said withdrawal could take place within the next year. The Lamont campaign pointed out that Rep. Shays position on Iraq was now in line with Lamont's own. In a press release Lamont said: "I'm pleased that Congressman Shays now understands the importance of changing course and is talking about a timetable to withdraw our troops."

In a conference call with the media Lamont Campaign Manager Tom Swan and Chairman of the Campaign George Jepson called on Senator Joe Lieberman to object to Rep. Shays calls for withdrawal with as much vigor as it has Lamont's similar views. They want Lieberman to clarify his own position on Iraq as well as whether or not he agreed with Shays who has visited Iraq several times previously.

When reached for comment Senator Lieberman offered that he would "take a look" at what Shays proposed.

In her own press release Rep. Shays opponent Diane Farrell questioned Shays's change of position saying, "“Chris Shays has been to Iraq 14 times. Thirteen times he came home saying things were great. Now all of a sudden he sees what I've been saying for years. I find that quite curious."

I'll have more from the conference call up this evening, including details about this afternoon's meeting betwwen Lamont and Senator Hillary Clinton.

Edit 5:38PM: I inadvertantly misidentified George Jepson's title. A correction has been made to the text.

Swan, Tom. "Ned Lamont Reiterates Call to Bring Our Brave Troops Home
Republican Chris Shays Echoes Lamont, Lieberman "Taking a Look" at Shays Plan
". Official Campaign Press Release. 8/25/06

Asthana, Anuska. "Shays Urges Iraq Withdrawal". Washington Post. 8/25/06

Spiegel, Jan Ellen. "FARRELL TO SHAYS: A PHONE CALL TO REPORTERS DOESNÂ’T CHANGE HISTORY". Official Campaign Press Release. 8/25/06


bluecoat said...

He changed his position before he left for Iraq but he went to Iraq so he could announce he changed his position based on his visit - Politics 201. I am glad he changed his position though. We'll see what transcends in reality beyond the politics. Bush has changed his position numerous times as well - just never flip-flopped; I guess.

Anonymous said...

cgg - I am sure there will be plenty of criticism over your headline, so let's just say that it is slightly biased to say the least.

More importantly, below I have quoted the most significant part of the story, which, not surprisingly, is found in the 2d to last paragraph. I find it hard to believe that Lamont agrees with these comments.

"Shays said that while a timetable can and should be set, having one does not necessarily mean the withdrawal would be quick. He said it would be an outrage to leave Iraq before the Iraqis have the security they need. Some forces would have to remain to provide logistical support to the government and its armed forces. "It may be a timeline Americans don't want to hear," he said."

In other words, we need a plan and a timetable, according to Shays. That is nothing new. I doubt, however, that his timetable would be as quick, as say, Al Gore's or Ned Lamont's.

Disgusted Republican said...

Great. If we do what Shays suggests, America will be seen as weak, and Al-Qaida will be encouraged. I'm so embarassed to be from Connecticut, what with Lamont, and now Shays. At least Simmons will stand strong with Lieberman. And Nancy Johnson better not start dancing to the Democrats weak tune on national security.

GMR said...

For all those that are advocating a pull-out from Iraq by a fixed date: what do you think should become of the place after we leave? Just let whoever is strongest take charge? Should we install a dictator that is friendly to US Interests? Let Iran take it over? Put back Saddam?

Does it matter to those advocating a pullout by a fixed date that this would seem to indicate that if a group practices the sort of insurgency that was waged in Iraq, it'll win, and thus can do the same elsewhere?

People now bemoan the fact that there are a lot of casualties in Iraq. Would you care if there were even more after we left? Do you think there would be more?

Has anyone advocating a withdrawal contemplated what the consequences of that would be? What sort of government do you think would wind up in Iraq? Would it support terrorism?

Would you care if a very weakened Iraqi state was invaded by Turkey to get the Kurdish region, or by Iran, Syria, etc?

bluecoat said...

The US will be seen as weak by whom? And why will alQaeda be encouraged? I don't get it.

Bobby McGee said...

Connecticut or Bizarro world- you decide.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

CGG, one reading quickly might surmise from your headline that Chris Shays exclaimed "I hereby cite Ned Lamont's reasoning and wholly change my position on Iraq." I know this is a blog...but this is kind of misleading.

Shays isn't calling for a complete withdrawal by a date certain. That's just a fact. He's calling for some more concrete planning- but there's still quite a bit of daylight between him and Ned Lamont- let's not kid ourselves.

Politics 301 is where you get close enough to your opponent to bearhug her on her wedge issue- without compromising your ultimate position. Nice job, Chris. Well done!

When Ned Lamont says that withdrawal won't be quick and that Americans might not like his timeframe- then, CGG, I won't critique the above headline.

GMR said...

The US will be seen as weak by whom? And why will alQaeda be encouraged? I don't get it.

What don't you get? If we pull out in defeat, how can we not be looked at as anything but weak by anyone?

If we pull out, what do you think will happen? Don't you think that the jihadists will feel some sort of appreciation that they won?

If we pull out, who do you think will end up as the top power in Iraq?

The Advocate said...

The question here is whether or not there is any practical diffence between Lamont's position and that put forward by Shays.

Representative Shays believes that the troops must be withdrawn, that there must be concrete plans to do so, but that we should not set a date certain.

Mr. Lamont believes that the troops must be withdrawn, sooner rather than later, that there must be concrete plans to do so, and that we should do it by the end of next year if possible.

It appears the Congressman has changed his position on the issue, and is now in great agreement with Mr. Lamont. Substantively, is there now much daylight between Mr. Shays and Mr. Lamont? It does not appear so.

Anonymous said...

It would be great if we could pull out "when we win" but when is that? There are no guidelines that define a "win." Some of us support keeping troops in Iraq for humanitarian aide and rebulding of infrastructure. It's time for Iraq to be given more and more responsibilty and force them into governing themselves. We need support from other nations for this and I applaud Shayes for realizing he made a mistake. It would be nice if Johnson and Simmons would wake up too. Now is the time for Congress to take action. We don't need the same people with the same ideas getting re-elected or this will go on until Bush's term is up.

Anonymous said...

I voted for Lamont (and will do so in November) because I've had it Lieberman in countless ways, including his support for starting this war without bothering to figure out the endgame. That being said, however, I don't see how we can just up and leave. We've ruined these people's lives and we have a moral obligation to restore order. It could take years, but its our obligation.

Grumpy said...

Hey Boys and Girls,

Lamont doesn't call for an unconditional withdrawal of all US forces by a date certain.

Go to the issues page at his website and look it up for yourself. From the Iraq War issues page on his site:

"Looking forward, I salute the patriotism and wisdom of Congressman Murtha and others who emphasize that “stay the course” is not a winning strategy for Iraq or America. Our best chance of success requires that the Iraqis take control of their own destiny. America should make clear that we have no designs upon their oil and no plans for permanent bases. 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."

I've been mystified throughout this campaign by both the extreme anti-war crowd and the extreme pro-war crowd who constantly mis-represent what Lamont says is his position on the Iraq war. The difference between Lieberman and Lamont is not betwen "stay the course" and "cut and run." It's between "we're on the right track" and "you're kidding, right?"

I am a Republican said...

Shays has shown, once again, that he is everything his handlers say he's not...someone who will stand up and take hits for what he professes he believes in.

He has been as malleable as one can be on numerous issues--constantly changing his views at the most opportune moments to what he perceives is most popular.

Chris, your self righteous, pompous, pious guise is slipping--you're a snake. I will consider looking at Diane Farrell this election, because why have Democrat-lite when I can have the real thing? And since you seem to have no qualms about abandoning the Republicans who elect you for that which is most poltically expedient, then I will not have any qualms about abadoning you.

Grumpy said...

I agree with the those criticizing cgg for the headline. A much more accurate headline would be "Shays Changes Position On Iraq And Calls For Withdrawal Timeline."

If you wanted to editorialize in the headline you could add something like "joins Farrell in calling for departure of Rumsfeld."

Anonymous said...

yeah why can't we have more unbiased headlines like:

Will The Real Diane Farrell Please Stand-Up

Crunchy Conservative said...

Grumpy, what is the real difference between Lamont and Lieberman? Lamont says pull them back to some kind of perimeter and Lieberman says the same thing. The only difference is that Lamont says let's start now and the Iraqis will be forced to get ready and Lieberman says let's start when the Iraqis are ready. Lamont says it is the Iraqis problem to work out and Lieberman says we broke it we have to fix it.

TrueBlueCT said...

Oh yeah, and another small difference is that, as a Neo-Con, Joe Lieberman is all for elective wars, (particularly as the Liebermans never have to fight them), whereas Lamont is a devotee of the "speak softly and carry a big stick" crowd.

Night and day. And while one crowd is a spendthrift when it comes to America's moral capital, the other is much more conservative...

Stretchy McStretch said...

When I'm looking for some real informed advice about our foreign policy objectives, I usually go to:

A) Greenwich businessman
B) Former First Selectwoman of Westport
C) United States Congressman and Chair of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations

Farrell can paint Chris Shays all she likes as a weak flip-flopper who chooses politically expedient positions on Iraq.

I'd personally rather take my cues from the man who receives intelligence briefings and has been out in the field, viewing the progress of this war.

I'd also rather have elected representatives who are willing to change their policy views after seeing persuasive evidence.

As for that headline...I thought I was reading The Onion for a minute...

Anonymous said...

Chris Shays was smart to do this in his id say he is going to win. Lieberman looks all alone now and refused to endorse any Democrat for November.( read todays Htfd Courant article about SHays and see it)...If i was Courtney,Farrell,Murphy or DeStefano id be furious.

bluecoat said...

Shays, who interrupted the interview to take a call from a White House official interested in hearing the congressman clarify his comments firsthand, said he is planning hearings next month to help establish a realistic timetable for drawing down U.S. troops. it says in Shays' Shift Causes A Stir Candidates Rush To Benefit From New Iraq Stance August 26, 2006 By MARK PAZNIOKAS, Courant Staff Writer

Brassett said...

Stretchy, if one takes your stance to its logical conclusion, there'd never be a case for voting against an incumbent. As far as I'm concerned, this bunch got us into this mess and need to be replaced.

Anonymous said...

Chris Shays proves again he lied when he got his CO when it was his turn to fight.

He didn't have a Conscience(C) then and he doesn't have one now.

His first and only impulse was in both instaces was to say anything to save his own ass.

Even Lieberman, with his 14 deferments, is more a man then this coward.

Anonymous said...

Diane Farrell will defeat Chris Shays in November.

Shays has been there way too long like Nancy Johnson and we need them to go bye bye and elect Diane Farrell and Chris Murphy.

Also Joe Courtney in the 2nd It would be nice to have all Democrats in the House.

bluecoat said...

2:31; please post a link to your poll so we can decide for ourselves - or at leat give us some analysis beyond the cheerleading; thanks

Anonymous said...

My prediction is that people will send Shays and Johnson away in favor of some fresh ideas with Farrell and Murphy and I believe there will be a higher than normal turnout due to Lieberman/Lamont race which is what i am thinking will happen and this should also help Courtney in 2nd.

Also Rell/Fedele win taking 65-70% of the vote The Constituional Officers get re-elected and Democrats keep control of State House and Senate.

My thoughts are based on my opinion and not any polls.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:46 (8/26):

Lieberman is not withdrawing his endorsements of the Democratic challengers. Get your facts straight!

From the NY Times:

"On Saturday, a Lieberman campaign aide called to offer a clarification for this article. The aide, Dan Gerstein, said that the senator had endorsed all the Democratic candidates for the House and still hoped they would win.

[Mr. Gerstein said, however, that in light of their endorsement of Mr. Lamont, the senator did not expect the Democrats to ask him to campaign with them this fall.]"