FACT CHECK: Ned Lamont Does Not Support ‘Immediate Withdrawal’ From Iraq
FACT CHECK: Ned Lamont Does Not Support ‘Immediate Withdrawal’ From Iraq
People have the right to disagree about what should be done in Iraq. This is part of a healthy political debate. What isn’t healthy is distorting someone’s position to score political points.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), and others are appearing on national TV and claiming — explcitly and implicitly — that Ned Lamont supports “immediate withdrawal” from Iraq. Watch some examples:
These claims are false. Ned Lamont does not support immediate withdrawal. He has explicitly said that he would have supported the amendment proposed by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), which called for a phased withdrawal over the course of the next year.
A majority of Americans do not support immediate withdrawal of all troops. But Lamont’s actual position — setting a timetable for withdrawal — is supported by nearly 60 percent of the American public.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Whoa!
The real story here is that TP is actually acknowledging Ned Lamont??
Wow!
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:08 pmI’m proud of you!
I’m sure the ABC news person called him on that, right? HAHAHA, yeah.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:08 pmJohn McCain went from a maverick to a Bush sock puppet in 6 years. John, retire before the Bush crowd decides to swiftboat you again.
-GSD
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:09 pmThe cracks in the right wing Republican facade are turning into fissures.
It’s looking more and more like the Dems have a very good chance of taking both the House and Senate in Nov.
Then it’s going to be a blast to finally have chacks and balances with accountability for lame duck “King George”.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:14 pmi.e. checks and balances
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:15 pmI am for withdrawing the troops right a way. We need to move them out and let Iraq take care of themself. The Repubs lied to us for 6 years and in November went we take over both houses we can hold them accountable. Hurry up November come soon.
This will be fun!!!!
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:28 pmWasn’t McCain just yesterday pretending to gripe at BushCo for mishandling Iraq? I’ve lost track — is McCain now flipping, or is he flopping? Or maybe he’s just whirling around in circles.
It must be hard trying to kiss everyone’s asses at the same time, Johnny boy…
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:35 pmI think everyone needs to be careful here. Yes, Iraq is a disastor under this current administration. Yes, our troops would be better at home or spread through out the region to deal with specific targets and issues (i.e. terrorist leaders and training camps). But the thing is congress can’t take control of the military that is the Presidents job. So the issue here should be oversight. Right now I don’t care what the canidates position on the war is, but rather will they fullfill their duty to the institution of Congress and the American People and hold the President accountable for his actions.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:37 pmElliot, by law congress can not take control of the military, just as it is law that the president is not supposed to make law. However congress can start exercising their DUTY to versee the white house and what they do, including the presidents continued insistance that he can make law with his signing statements.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:46 pmElliot,
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:50 pmCongress can also cut off the funding. So, in a sense, they do have quite a bit of control.
Aren’t we really splitting hairs here? There are two basic camps:
Camp A: Leave Iraq without regard to the circumstances on the ground.
Camp B: Leave Iraq only when the circumstances on the ground allow.
Lamont is clearly in camp A. Whether that means pulling out in one month or 12, the resulting repercussions on the ground in Iraq from the US departure will not change the withdrawal based on Lamont’s position. Based on this underlying principle, what does the amount of time have to do with anything, really?
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:51 pmThat’s exactly my point Mark. If it didn’t come off that way my mistake. That’s why I think it is far more important that the members elected to congress this time around take their oversight of the President seriously, then we can get to their views on the War. (Was there a declaration of war? or was it for the use of force?)
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:53 pmI agree with the first post and am pumped to see lamont defended on this blog.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:04 pmCamp A: Leave Iraq without regard to the circumstances on the ground.
Camp B: Leave Iraq only when the circumstances on the ground allow.
You left out the President’s position– we’re not leaving. Whether this means colonizing Iraq or staying in there until the Army breaks, the resulting repercussions will not change the fact that Bush is an idiot.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:09 pmSmear and Fear politics by the Right..get used to it.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:17 pmStraight talk and HoJo are getting ready to mob out for 08. Too bad Iraq ain’t going away.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:18 pmAw, gee, Johnny got his dick caught in the zipper of truth again…
Ouch! :^)
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:26 pm11 Pointman – This is a false dichotomy you have set up here… it gives no recognition to the fact that our presence is influencing the circumstances on the ground. .. and that there is really an infinite array of strategies combining circumstance dependant and circumstance independent strategies with immediate withdrawal to never ending occupation.
It also misrepresents Camp A as having no regard for circumstances on the ground… instead many in “Camp A†have the very real perspective that the US can not be indefinitely responsible for the circumstances on the ground in Iraq… Eventually good, bad, or indifferent the Iraqi government… like all sovereign governments… has to be responsible for its internal affairs.
Also – do you really think waiting for all to be well on the ground is a realistic strategy that America can really afford to pursue? If you look at historical sectarian conflicts like in Ireland and Israel you will recognize that these things don’t usually work themselves out very quickly… do you think we can really afford to play world police in Iraq for the next couple of centuries?
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:27 pmCamp C: Conditions on the ground allow us to start pulling out troops now, removing them to where they can do some good, like the Kurdish border with Turkey perhaps, and all indications are the conditions will improve once we do remove our troops.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:29 pmCamp “F” for Bush’s FAILED Iraq policy.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:50 pmFine – now that we have identified Camps A, B, & C (C being Ctay the Course), let us not forget Camp D (for Dumbness squared). Camp D will be to reinstate the draft, bring the Armed forces up to WW II levels and invade Iran. In fact, the Macaca (a George Allen euphemism for “shithead”) in the White House might even elect to try that course without augmenting our military, based upon Rumsfeld’s sterling ability to prognosticate success using a minimal investment in troops & material.
If congress remains totally in control of neocon idelogues, I fear there will be no chance of any check or balance. We certainly have not seen any instance of it for the last 6 years.
So please keep the following in mind: A vote for Joe is a vote for George, vote for Ned instead!!!
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:54 pmEither way, no matter what the rethuglican smear machine says, immediate withdrawal is very appealing to Americans, and the world for that matter. So if they think they are doing damage, they are instead helping his campaign. Great work!
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:13 pmI’m calling for an immediate withdrawal of Bush from the White House. NOT a phased withdrawal. However, if Bush wants to withdraw to the nearest mental institution/prison I’ll consider it.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:15 pmA majority of Americans do not support immediate withdrawal of all troops. But Lamont’s actual position — setting a timetable for withdrawal — is supported by nearly 60 percent of the American public.
It’s also supported by members of the new Iraqi government, who’ve twice asked Bush for a withdrawal plan…a move Bush said he would honor should they ask.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:17 pmI’m disappointed in Lamont. Would he be willing to die, or have a child of his die, for whatever a phased withdrawal would accomplish?
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:17 pmBush has photos of McCain in a motel room with sheep.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:20 pm#26 Henry
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:22 pmNot everyone can leave at once. It takes months to deploy the forces and it takes months to ship them home.
I’m disappointed in Lamont. Would he be willing to die, or have a child of his die, for whatever a phased withdrawal would accomplish?
Comment by Henry — August 23, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
WHAT?
Would Georgie be willing to die or have his two daughters die for whatever staying the course would accomplish?
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:22 pmWasn’t liar McCain all over the news yesterday lying about his view on the Iraq war?
McCain Yesterday…
“…many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.â€
McCain 3/2003 when asked if he believes we’ll be welcomed in Iraq as liberators…
“…Absolutely. Absolutely.”
AND NONE OF CORPORATE MEDIA OUTLETS I WATCHED/READ CALLED HIM ON IT. DISGUSTING.
With no fear of being exposed as a liar by the Corporate Media I guess its a no-brainer to get on TV again today and smear Lamont.
I’m ashamed to be the same species as these dirtbags.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:25 pmI SUPPORT LAMONT IN SPITE OF HIS POLICIES OF STEP WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ , FOR AN IMMIDIATE WITHDRAWAL MAKE SENSE :
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:29 pmLET US FIGHT A DIFFERENT WAR AGAINST TERRORISM , A COVERT WAR AGAINST IRAN AND ITS SURROGATES . A WAR THAT REQUIRES BRAINS , NO HYPES MOTIVATED BY POLITICAL GAINS . A TOTAL COMMITMENT BY OUR COUNTRY .
LET US REMOVE THE PARIS HILTONS AND KARRS OFF THE MSM AND BRING IN THE REALISMS OF WAR AND SURVIVAL . THAT’LL SOBER UP THE PIE IN THE SKY REPUBS .THE RELIGIOUS FREAKS AND DOOMSDAY SOOTHSAYERS
I’m disappointed in Lamont. Would he be willing to die, or have a child of his die, for whatever a phased withdrawal would accomplish?
Comment by Henry — August 23, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
It appears you are suggesting that the terrorists would follow us home, no? Are you so sure as to lend credence to this? It would seem, given the multiple terrorists strikes outside of Iraq since the start of our invasion, that they are inclined to attack anyway. As well, given 3 successful attacks against America on our own soil prior to the war in Iraq (including one by an American), and at least one legitimate plot that was foiled (the so-called millineum attack), it would appear that we are a target no matter what our foreign policy is, no matter what country we occupy.
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:42 pmMcCain has reportedly quite a temper. How long before a real journalist confronts him on his inconsistencies/flip-flops and he has a verbal melt-down? After he announces his intention to seek the Republican nomination for President and his exposure increases?
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:44 pmIt seems to me that staying in Iraq unites insurgents, Islamic radicals, and jihadists against a common enemy–the US. Once we withdrawal, the factions will fight amongst themselves for power. Iran will back the Shiites, Iraq will deneragte into sectarian violence if not outright civil war, tens of thousand will die. Ultimately, it seems that Iran is likely to gain control over most of Iraq and its oil. It seems to me that the Sunnis states in the middle east will not take lightly to such a powerful Iran causing a split along sectarian lines.
Of course I’m no middle east pundit so who know if this is how it will play out. If there is any lesson we should learn from history is the law of unintended consequences will always bit you on the ass. What do the pundits predict what will happen?
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:46 pmThe one thing I’ll always be grateful to Dubya for is showing me John McCain’s true colors. Watching McCain suck up to Bush after the way he got screwed over in the primaries was a real eye-opener. Until that point, I might have actually voted for McCain if he’d run. But after that, no way. If he’s not even willing to stand up for himself, why would anyone believe he’d stand up for them?
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:56 pmJust for the record, insane McCain will NOT be the GOP presidential candidate. That honor will be given to Rudy.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:02 pmYou guys are full of it. Ned Lamont does support a total withdrawl of all forces from Iraq, and immediately. Another cut and run Democrat. Seems to be an awful lot of cowards in your party.
The Republican plan—– lie and die.
The Democrats plan—- cut and run.
Both parties are a bunch of gutless cowards!!!!
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:02 pm24 Democrats supported the war in 2003. Now, most of them don’t even want you to know they voted for it. And the nutcases in the Democratic party are perfectly willing to forget all the Democrats who voted for it. My, My, My. What passes for incompetence around here.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:06 pmYou guys are full of it. Ned Lamont does support a total withdrawl of all forces from Iraq, and immediately.
Comment by Bushit — August 23, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
When Ned Lamont’s own words just aren’t good enough – you can count on Bushit to tell us all what Lamont really supports.
Tell us Bushit – How is it that you know better than Ned Lamont what Ned Lamont supports?
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:15 pmBushit – so what’s your oh so manly, gonna kick some ass plan then tough guy?
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:23 pmBushit – you guys can’t have it both ways. Had these 24 demos not voted for the false pretense war – based on your boys cherry picked and exaggerated evidence – you’d be demonizing them for that, too! Cut and Run was a Rove/Bushco. invention. Dems never said that. They just happen to agree with the 61% of Americans (the people they’re supposed to be working for) and want to get our boys out…soon…soveign Iraqi Government…let them deal with their country now. We’re part of the problem that is the current circumstance.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:26 pmAnd don’t even get me started on incompetence…that fool that resides in the white house is the poster boy for friggin incompetence.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:27 pm24 Democrats supported the war in 2003. Now, most of them don’t even want you to know they voted for it. And the nutcases in the Democratic party are perfectly willing to forget all the Democrats who voted for it. My, My, My. What passes for incompetence around here.
Comment by Bushit — August 23, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
I don’t think anyone voted for an open ended occupation of Iraq!
All of the military objectives that congress voted on have been accomplished… if Uncurious George wants to perpetually occupy Iraq he should go back and take another vote… how do you think that would work out for him?
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:38 pmBushit –
I think the posts before mine covered most of it. But don’t forget
smoking gun mushroom cloud
Atta with Sadam
we know where they are N, S, E, and W of Baghdad
I would have voted for the war had any of the things this administration were peddling actually been true. But alas, they weren’t.
I welcome your input. However, you have to be intellectually honesty to have credibility. Being belligerent is no substitute for credibility.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:45 pmIf Lamont wants the support of the Dem ,he has to support the gutless party line of phased withdrawal . On the other hand let us consider the polls on the subject . The majority is for phased withdrawal . The generals do not want an immidiate evacuation wich would definetly look like defeat .No panic sortie a la Viet Nam . We must save face. So let us swallow our pride and get the hell out of there one way or the other .
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:57 pmLet us review our methods of fighting terrorism , go covert , understated , intelligent , up to date and certainly more effective.
No! Ned Lamont’s position IS that we should leave within a year no matter what the conditions on the ground are. It would make no sense to say that we’ll leave in a phased withdrawal, but stop the withdrawal if things got really bad.
Things ARE really bad. I thought the point of all this was to support Lamont because he doesn’t want to stay the course. Now some of you fools are saying that we should, actually, stay the course depending on what happens during a 12 month phase down. Hypocrites! Leave Iraq in 12 months, non-negotiable.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:07 pmWas British terror plot a load of crap?
Liquid explosives very difficult to make; Orange Alert a political move?
An article posted last Thursday in the British online outlet The Register raises a very good question I haven’t seen posed anywhere else, certainly not in our sycophantic American media: was the exposed British “plot” to bring down commercial airliners by mixing harmless household chemicals in the lavatory even remotely possible from the standpoint of basic chemistry?
To address that question, it’s worth quoting from The Register’s article:
“We’re told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner — all easily concealed in drinks bottles — and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane. … Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together.
First, you’ve got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.
But let’s assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you’ve got them on hand.
Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It’s all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don’t forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked “perishable foods”), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You’re going to need them.
It’s best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate — especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation — to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.
Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide/acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you’ll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you’ll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.
After a few hours — assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven’t overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities — you’ll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.
The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit “mass murder on an unimaginable scale,” as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it’s true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it’s unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that’s about all you’re likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.”
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:12 pmLamont is no better than Lieberman.
He is just as supportive of Israel’s blind and hate-filled aggression in exchange for support for his candidacy as was Joe.
There is an elephant in this living room and as long as we’re talking about something else, it will never change.
The powers that be are slapping each others’ backs and laughing at us for thinking we changed something by electing lamont.
Lamont is a loser, just not a loserman.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:15 pm36
The Republican plan—– lie and die.
The Democrats plan—- cut and run.
Ok, so you’re blasting both sides on this. What do you favor?
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:20 pmW
O
W
Lamont Sanford can’t back track and flip flop fast enough from his positions against the war. Fortunately, Lieberman showed Lamont Sanford cycling through several positions on the Iraq War during his one televised debate alone, so enough folks in CT will see right through him.
Better luck next time children.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:21 pmW
O
W
Lamont Sanford can’t back track and flip flop fast enough from his positions against the war. Fortunately, Lieberman showed Lamont Sanford cycling through several positions on the Iraq War during his one televised debate alone, so enough folks in CT will see right through him.
Better luck next time children.
That’s ok, Liebershit’s been shown to be a flip-flopper/backtracker in an even worse way in how he has supported Rumsfeld one time and then – during an election season, of course – calling for his resignation/firing. Joe’s trying to have it both ways and I don’t think it’s gonna work.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:25 pm49) Besides, he’s still for withdrawl and holding Crawford’s missing village idiot accountable in Congress. THAT is something voters want to see, too.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:27 pmPat Buchanon has been bigotted for as long as I can remember….He is only validating the racist nature of society which, being a hypocrite that he is, I am sure he will deny
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:39 pm#50 & #51, Erik,
I am proud that you can spot the flip floppers and back trackers in the Democratic Party – there is hope for you yet.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:58 pmTsk, tsk, tsk ….
Lamont Sanford had a real chance before he started backtracking. Now he just looks like the same “say anything for a vote” Democrats we’ve gotten since Clinton fell into office in 3 way races against a conservative and an independent.
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:15 pmWE could do without the anti Israel knaves , the pro islamist cry babies , the murderers who have declare war against the western civ, they are still in the 9th century and sip their coffee and tea criticize and make war rather than educate and work to bring themselves in the 21st. What i ask , this oil and blood bathed society has contributed to mankind ?Where are the great moslems of yesteryears the poet , the philosophers ? i say they were and still are murdered by their imans who wish not to relinquish power .
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:48 pmmr mccain is sounding more and more like karl
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:55 pmI wish the liberal blogs would stop referring to Lieberman as a Democrat. He has announced his disdain for Democrats and has joined the Republicans. Please start referring to lieberman as a Republican, or at least refer to him as an Independent.
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:55 pmThat was interesting, Tobey – and the sort of thing one wants to know but is definitely afraid to ask. I’m glad that info is getting out there and will be interested to hear from the science types as to plausibility. Maybe it’s just NOT plausible and that’s why the DHS never did anything about the “liquid bomb” threats in the past.
So Bushco knew it wouldn’t work but intoned scary nonsense for political reasons. Who would have guessed?
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:57 pmI wish the liberal blogs would stop referring to Lieberman as a Democrat. He has announced his disdain for Democrats and has joined the Republicans. Please start referring to lieberman as a Republican, or at least refer to him as an Independent.
Comment by Johann
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:24 pm———
…or just,”former Democrat”.
Evidently the Republicans have successfully framed the debate regarding the possible withdrawal from Iraq.
Immediate withdrawal is now seen as unacceptable,dangerous, by many.The reasons given for this pronouncement are dubious and vague,imo.
We’re being played,yet again.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:05 pmThis war is a disaster whether we leave a year from now, two years from now or tomorrow.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 pmMcCain feels, rightly so, that he is being out ” straight talked ” by Chuck Hagel. That is the reason for this little charade we are seeing. It is my guess it will be these 2 fighting it out in 2008.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:17 pmWhat’s the matter people?? Why are you so willing to give a pass to the 24 Senators who voted for the war?? I guess all you gutless cowards aren’t willing to call a spade a spade.
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:53 pmRepublicans—– lie and die
Democrats—— cut and run
Both parties are gutless!!!!!!
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:56 pmBushit, original. What is YOUR solution, Nader?
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:08 pmNo one is actually for immediate withdrawal since forces can’t be withdrawn “immediately” — it takes time to remove over 100,000 troops, especially in a hostile environment. But if you say that someone is for beginning as rapid a withdrawal as possible, it’s really not so distorted to say they are calling for immediate withdrawal. Without offering any judgment on his position, I think it is fair to say Lamont is calling for US troops to get out of Iraq — he wants an end to the mission, and to start drawing down troops posthaste. If he wasn’t pushing for that, you wouldn’t be so outspoken in your support. You want to say that’s not “immediate?” You say tomato…
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:21 pmWhat difference does it make when we leave? We have lost. Prolonging the agony isAll American trait. As much as we wish the Iraqi people were noble lovers of the demcratic process and wish them a wonderful democratic life, the fact is we know they are bottom feeders and Islamists who wish nothing but death to us all who are not like them and their Muslim brothers. Maybe we should be providing weapons to the women of these seventh century Middle Eastern counties.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:24 amhaving been through the ordeal of friends being sent to serve, dying in isreal as peace keepers, dying in combat in iraq, i personally can attest that this war is doing noone any good. lets get the F**K out of there. the trillions of doallrs in oil are not ours, the oil fields are already contracted to russia.
why? why? why?
August 24th, 2006 at 5:50 amBushit- so, if all of congress’ stipulations have been met, then why would we remain in Iraq any longer? Your rants are full of holes. Perhaps you should go over to NedLamont.com and review his actual positions before you take the role of the ignoramus. Phased withdrawal is the party’s platform, and it is correct; Ned Lamont agrees. Go vote for a 5th party or something, like LIEberman’s Connecticut Narcissist Party (CT for Lieberman party).
August 24th, 2006 at 9:38 amImpeach the lying bastards, try them for war ccrimes. Execute them if found guilty. This is a nation of laws not of men. Let justice have it’s day. Then Fix this mess that these lying neo-conmen bastards have forced upon the world.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:36 pm[...] the Tommy Flanagan of American politics, here [...]
August 24th, 2006 at 2:51 pm[...] As ThinkProgress has previously documented, a majority of Americans reject Bush’s “stay the course” policy and want the U.S. to set a timetable for the withdrawal of forces from Iraq. Rather than exhibiting waffling attitudes about the war, polling data has shown an unmistakably clear trend in recent months. Mystery Pollster writes, “Looking at the questions pollsters are now asking about prospective Iraq policy, I see fewer differences and far more consistency, a finding that may reflect a gradual hardening of opinion.” [...]
September 11th, 2006 at 12:14 pm“Phased withdrawal over the next year” is simply code for cut-and-run. Come on, who are you moonbats kidding here? This is almost as good as Representative Murtha saying we need to “redeploy” to a nearby American stronghold like Okinawa! What’s with that? The man needs a geography lesson or he truly believes the partisan insanity that he’s engaging in. I believe the last poll I saw had 48% of Americans supporting present efforts in Iraq and 56% not wanting to set a scheduled withdrawal that even smacks of cutting-and-running.
BTW, how long did it take for American to cut-and-run from Vietnam? And despite all the crude comparisons to the Vietnam War by anti-war ideologues, if we do cut-and-run the following mayhem will result: Jihadists and whacked out Muslim fundamentalists will enforce re-education camps, their will be a slaughter of those who cooperated with the forces of freedom or engaged in the western practice of free enterprise, Iraqi flight by the hundreds of thousands as Iraq is turned into another killing field and training ground for Muslim terrorists as we run home to hide waiting for the next jihadist attack on our homeland. That’s the one difference, the North Vietnamese commies never said they would follow our troops to America and rain death on innocent civilians, the jihadists have said precisely that.
Has any liberal here ever that of the overwhelming strategic significant of having American troops to the east and west of Iran, particularly during a time in history when a crazy Islamic regime is trying to develop a working nuclear weapon?
September 11th, 2006 at 5:25 pm