A day after saying in a major campaign speech that "we must get tougher with the Iraqi political leadership," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman met Tuesday with Iraq's president and had a pleasant conversation that ended with the two men agreeing progress is being made.
"President Jalal Talabani is committed to working for a unified, democratic Iraq that preserves the rights and promotes the security of all its citizens," the Connecticut Democrat, who is seeking re-election as an independent, said after he and four other senators met privately with Talabani for 45 minutes in the Capitol.
Asked if he followed through on Monday's "get tough" message, Lieberman said, "This is a question of allies working together. With a friend, you don't essentially put a gun to their head." (Lightman)
Right. Lieberman also commented on the ill-timed release of the NIE:
"Are there terrorists in Iraq? Of course there are. That's a reason we went in," he said. (Lightman)
Except, of course, that that's not really true.
The thing is, Joe Lieberman is good at defending the war, and posturing about national security. He may be right that pulling out will lead to nasty reprecussions in the region.
But he doesn't have any better idea of what to do now than anyone else.
Source
Lightman, David. "Getting Not So Tough." Hartford Courant 27 September, 2006.
8 comments:
I like how Nancy Johnson and Lieberman conveniently forget the truth regarding terrorism policy and Iraq when it suits them. The Nancy Johnson ad regarding FISA warrants is so blatantly wrong that I'm surprised it doesn't violate a campaign law.
Tell me oh Republicans on the site how that ad is factually true.
Lieberman's not principled. It's clear he'll say or do anything to get elected, even if he can't back it up.
If there's anything the Bush administration has taught American politicians, it's that they can tell straight out lies and not have anyone question you.
Joe's learned his lessons well.
Bobby McGee said: "It's clear he'll say or do anything to get elected, even if he can't back it up."
Bobby, you may be right about Joe on this one. Are you telling me that the same can't be said for just about every candidate?
Do you really believe that this does not apply to Ned Lamont? Tell me how a multi-millionaire, Greenwich country clubber, Harvard elite, who was a self-described fiscal conservative when he ran for the state senate, all of a sudden partners with Howard Dean, DFA, Al Sharpton and Tom Swan and sings from the far left playbook if it's not about getting elected.
Remember, this is the guy who, when he was not a candidate for office, wrote a letter praising Lieberman's handling of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair and then, as a candidate, reversed himself and attacked Lieberman.
So I agree with you. Lamont's "not principled. It's clear he'll say or do anything to get elected, even if he can't back it up."
cgg - I see that I have struck a chord here.
First, I am not part of anything associated with Joe Lieberman. I am just an unaffiliated voter and political junkie who will be voting for him this November.
Second, my main point was that most if not all candidates will say or do anything to get elected. While I used Lamont as an example - since it is most directly relevant to his point about Lieberman - I could have used any number of candidates. Basically, they are all the same.
Third, I didn't misrepresent his words, I simply demostrated that his exact words that he used against Lieberman could be used, in my opinion, to describe Lamont.
Fourth, I think Lamont's letter regarding Clinton speaks for itself, and we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Look, candidates say things, and avoid saying things, in order to get elected. It is not something we should be proud of, but it is our fault.
For example, everyone agrees that social security is in big trouble when the baby boomers retire. If you discard the notion of privatization, then there are limited options to fix the system: increased taxes, reduced benefits or increasing the retirment age. How many politicians from either party will answer that question honestly. Sen. Santorum and his opponent Casey debated on Meet the Press and neither would answer, because they are both afraid to speak honestly for fear that they will lose votes.
Call me cynical, but I believe most politicians will say anything to get eleceted, and that includes both Lieberman and Lamont.
"He may be right that pulling out will lead to nasty repercussions in the region." Yes, and that threat of the unknown will make a lot of uninformed voters think they need to vote for him out of fear and confusion.
What is known here and now is that we are already causing nasty repercussions, that our approach to fighting the war is flawed, and that the leadership who brought us this war is about as likely to have the insight to change or improve as "heckuva job Brownie" was going to improve or change FEMA's response to Katrina.
In the realm of disastrous consequences to fear, what exactly are the disastrous consequences of committing more troops than we have (draft needed), more money than we have, to a country in which the presence of our military adds gas to the fire and acts as a terrorist recruiting tool -- and then needing the military and money to fight in some highly strategic flashpoint?
Just as Katrina survivors turned to a ragtag bunch of locals in rowboats and rubber dinghies to save them fast when FEMA dawdled, so are the Iraqis turning to homemade solutions and ragtag militias in an effort to take control over their lives and be safe.
The mistake would be to engage in a debate about Katrina response with Brownie, and to engage in the details of the correct Iraq response with the same folks who rubberstamped it and didn't critique it and didn't provide oversight for a clearly bungled mess.
At a certain point I say we just have to realize that the solution is not coming from those who created the problem and rubberstamped the bungling or neglected voting on this critical issue. Their mindset, blinders, happy talk and general modus operandi just aren't up to the task. 11th hour fearmongering is NOT a strategy for winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people -- or the citizens of Connecticut.
Anon. 3:40 said...
" cgg - I see that I have struck a chord here.
First, I am not part of anything associated with Joe Lieberman. I am just an unaffiliated voter and political junkie who will be voting for him this November."
One of the challenges of being a political junkie is to avoid mainlining the mainstream media heroin (incomplete or misleading "reporting" with opinion-laced conclusions).
IMHO, the facts are your friend, and you aren't dealing with them square on.
Anyone who knows the race and the issues can see that you haven't delved below the spin to look at the facts.
Start with the entire original text of Ned Lamont's email and Joe Lieberman's actual voting record on Iraq (missed over 50% of the votes on that issue in the last 3 years).
If we have different opinons, that's great. But lets at least START from the facts.
Anon. 3:40 said...
" cgg - I see that I have struck a chord here.
First, I am not part of anything associated with Joe Lieberman. I am just an unaffiliated voter and political junkie who will be voting for him this November."
One of the challenges of being a political junkie is to avoid mainlining the mainstream media heroin (incomplete or misleading "reporting" with opinion-laced conclusions).
IMHO, the facts are your friend, and you aren't dealing with them square on.
Anyone who knows the race and the issues can see that you haven't delved below the spin to look at the facts.
Start with the entire original text of Ned Lamont's email and Joe Lieberman's actual voting record on Iraq (missed over 50% of the votes on that issue in the last 3 years).
If we have different opinons, that's great. But lets at least START from the facts.
Post a Comment