Connecticut's Journal Inquirer has a scathing editorial about Joe Lieberman today that is applicable to any politician who refuses to be coherent when it comes to Iraq. Lieberman, you may recall, has been issuing increasingly hysterical press releases to attack Ned for being supposedly inconsistent about Iraq. But, as the Journal Inquirer noted "Lamont is [saying] what he has said before: The war need not have been fought. It was sold to us based on false premises and information. We need to set a date certain for withdrawal of our troops. Period. Right or wrong, Lamont is clear and consistent." Put another way, it's not clear what part of "get out of Iraq" Lieberman doesn't understand. And that's exactly the problem with Lieberman - he can't give a straight answer on the most pressing national security issue of the day.
Here's the key excerpt from the editorial:
A few days ago, our incumbent junior senator, Joe Lieberman, a former candidate for president and vice president of the United States, told reporters that he needed a few more days to formulate, and properly articulate, his position on the war in Iraq. He wouldn't be talking about it with them until then.
Say what?
This man has been in the U.S. Senate for 18 years and he doesn't know what he thinks, or how to express what he thinks, on the war in Iraq?
Like a kid who is flunking an exam because he doesn't know what to write, Lieberman said he needed "more time." He's had 20 years in politics, but give him another week...
What Joe said most recently, prior to Friday, was: We should get out of Iraq ASAP, but too soon would be a grave mistake. It's hard to elaborate on that because it makes no logical sense.
But the senator has offered his own context. He has said previously that there are two reasons we should send him back to the Senate. One is that he is a trans-partisan. He belongs to all parties and to no party. He attends the Democratic caucus and accepts the support of Jack Kemp. He's running on his own party line. The other is his vast experience. He knows the ropes.
Well, if he knows the ropes, why can't Lieberman come up with a coherent position on Iraq?
If he knows foreign policy, why does he need more time to tell the press what his latest position is?
Any ordinary citizen who has thought about the war in Iraq and done a little reading on the subject could tell you what he thinks about Iraq - on the spot, unrehearsed, in about three minutes.
Why should Lieberman, after all the time this issue has been before us, and all the time he has been in the Senate, and all the resolutions he has co-sponsored on foreign policy and on Iraq, have to figure out what he thinks, package it, and embargo it until such time as he unveils his new position?
Any politician worth his salt should know what he thinks about Iraq, off the top of his head. And he should be willing and able to articulate it...Any politician who can't do this has ceded all credibility. The war in Iraq is the issue of the moment. If you need more time, advice, and packaging to respond, you are not fit for election, or re-election.
Lieberman's unwillingness to talk about Iraq comes on top of the fact that he's skipped half of all the U.S. Senate's votes on Iraq - even those that occur when he's in Washington. And while Lieberman fabricates a story about Ned supposedly being inconsistent, you may recall that he has taken at least 5 different Iraq positions, depending on how politically endangered he feels. This is from yesterday's Cup of Joe:
First he authored the resolution sending America to war in 2003. Then he skipped half of all U.S. Senate votes on Iraq. Then in June 2006, he criticized and voted against legislation urging the president to develop a plan to end the war in Iraq. Then in August after being defeated in the primary, he aired a campaign commercial claiming "I want to end the war" in Iraq. Then in September, the Hartford Courant reported that while "Lieberman vehemently denies Lamont's charge that he favors 'an open-ended commitment' in Iraq, he has not articulated how or when U.S. troops should leave." Then at 12:17pm on September 13, Lieberman voted for the exact same legislation on Iraq that he had voted against 11 weeks earlier. Then, just hours later on September 13, Lieberman issued a press release declaring his opposition to the Reid legislation he just voted for.
As I said at the start - this editorial is applicable to Lieberman and any other career politician who tries to fool voters by not addressing this critical national security issue. People like Ned who are courageous enough to take strong, clear and consistent positions on this war are the ones who respect voters by being honest - and come election day, they are going to be rewarded for standing on principle.
(DISCLOSURE: I have long been a volunteer supporter of Ned Lamont's candidacy and written extensively about the race. As of Labor Day, I am officially working with the Lamont for Senate campaign on research. The writing on this blog is my own, and not the official work I do for the Lamont campaign.)