Posted on 08/12/2006 6:06:18 AM PDT by Puppage
(Hartford-AP, Aug. 11, 2006 Updated 9:25 PM) _ The war of words continues between the campaigns of Senator Joe Lieberman and challenger Ned Lamont.
Lamont criticized Lieberman today for saying Lamont's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq would give a victory to the terrorists involved in the plot to blow up planes bound from Britain to the U.S.
Lieberman lost this week's Democratic primary to Lamont but is now waging an independent campaign. His comments about Lamont came yesterday at a stop in Waterbury, and he also accused Lamont of not fully understanding the threat to national security.
Lamont spokesman Liz Dupont-Diehl says that while Lieberman accuses people who challenge the Bush administration of being weak on security, Lieberman's support of President Bush's foreign policies has made America and the Middle East less safe.
Lamont told The New York Times that Lieberman sounded a lot like Vice President Dick Cheney. He says Cheney and Lieberman falsely believe that the Iraq war has much to do with the September 11th attacks.
Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein says Lamont continues to distort the senator's record.
He says Lieberman has been very critical of much of Bush's foreign policy. He also says Lieberman is criticizing Lamont for his views on homeland security, not all people who challenge the president's policies.
LOL! I'm afraid to look up the word "elastricator".
Lieberman can speak for himself. Why can't Lamont?
Ya know, I never was one for a paper endorsing anyone. I mean, how can there be objective reporting when a paper endorses one candidate over the another?
Not only do I know his name, I've played blackjack with him. Just kidding. But, you're right, he doesn't stand a chance. A year and a half ago, I said, after Lieberman chastized his fellow democrats for demanding apologies from US authorities for the Abu Ghraib thing and not from the terrorists, that I might actually vote for him. Now it appears that I may have to since the vote for the republican could hand the seat to a left wing antiwar loon.
I mean, how can there be objective reporting when a paper endorses one candidate over the another?
Agreed! Fortunately, the Times' endorsements mean little if anything (except to send a bias alert).
It just seems to me that Lieberman needs to leave the Democrat Party officially. He'd be a RINO, but the Democrats have shown their true colors.
My liberal-leaning friend is dismayed by what the Democrats have done to Lieberman. But, then, I think she's the same kind of centrist Democrat that Lieberman is.
I am so far to the right of Leibermans politics, but his support of efforts that protect America from terrorists trumps all else IMHO, which is why I plan to (gulp!) vote for him in November.
Lamont and the Muslims think they are going to control freedom of speech in this country. Not likely!
I'm going to have to gulp before I vote for him as well. I have both philosophical reasons (he's a lib to the core) and personal reasons (he railroaded a friend when he was AG), so it's going to be a bitter vote.
/s/
LOL! That's awesome.
well you missed there oped where they endorsed lamont(sanford and sons)
Time to send him back to his investments.
And complete withdrawal out of Iraq will make us safer? How's that?
Yes, I think he'll self destruct, too. Of course, I've known that ever since I found out he was Corliss Lamont's great nephew (Lamont's father is also named Corliss, but the famous wealthy Commie Corliss Lamont was his great uncle).
Maybe we should form a support group? LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.