Lieberman And Today’s Foiled Terrorist Attacks

Interesting how The New York Times decided to frame Lieberman’s comments today as him “seizing” on today’s news to “attack” Ned Lamont:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman seized on the terror arrests in Britain today to attack his Democratic rival, Ned Lamont, saying that Mr. Lamont’s goals for ending the war in Iraq would constitute a “victory” for extremists, including those accused of plotting to blow up airliners traveling between Britain and the United States.

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event at lunchtime in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

How outrageous! Lieberman actually had the cojones to talk about his opponent’s position vis-a-vis the war on terrorism in light of today’s foiled terrorist attack.

Well, I never.

For what it’s worth, here’s how Mr. Lamont responded:

In a telephone interview from his vacation home in Maine, Mr. Lamont said he was disappointed with the personal tone Mr. Lieberman’s remarks, and questioned the connection between the Iraq war and the new terrorist plot. He also continued his strategy of trying to link Mr. Lieberman’s views with those of the Bush administration, whose approach the senator has tended to support in the fight against terrorism.

“Wow,” Mr. Lamont said, after asking a reporter to read Mr. Lieberman’s remark about him. “That comment sounds an awful lot like Vice President Cheney’s comment on Wednesday. Both of them believe our invasion of Iraq has a lot to do with 9/11. That’s a false premise.”


Mr. Lamont hesitated when he was asked if Mr. Lieberman’s criticisms were beyond the bounds of acceptable political combat.

“To try to score political points on every international issues…” Mr. Lamont said, before pausing and stopping himself. Then he added, “Why do I have to say anything?”

Something tells me that Lamont’s strategy of simply comparing Lieberman to Bush and/or Cheney is going to start to wear a little thin as this race moves forward. But then again, it did win him a primary.

Surprisingly, unlike the NYT, the AP decided to focus on the substance of Lieberman’s comments leading with his comparison of terrorists to Nazis and the need for unity to overcome this new threat:

“We are at war with a brutal enemy,” said Lieberman during a campaign stop Thursday at a Waterbury pizza joint. “How the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as Democrats and Republicans against each other when these terrorists certainly don’t distinguish based on party affiliation? They want to kill any and all of us.”


“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous that the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,” Lieberman said.

“I want to make sure that I satisfy my responsibilities and use my seniority in the Senate to make the future of the families of Connecticut safer than it would otherwise be. I don’t think that Ned Lamont gets that and that’s a serious difference between us.”

As I’m sure you can imagine, this whole thing has the the lefties incensed. The Left Coaster says it a “smear” and wonders how long until “Ned Lamont equals Osama” ads start to run. My Left Nutmeg calls Lieberman a “primitive tribal shaman” that engages in “tribal-style magical thinking” (No, I’m not making that up). And there’s a DU thread too, if you dare.

Meanwhile, Dan Reihl has the requisite snark: “Looks like you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, after all. The Senator just can’t seem to grasp that terrorist is simply another name for an oppressed religious minority. And the Nazi cracks are supposed to be reserved for Bush. You’d think the primary would have at least taught him THAT!”

FILED UNDER: Terrorism, Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Greg Tinti
About Greg Tinti
Greg started the blog The Political Pit Bull in August 2005. He was OTB's Breaking News Editor from June through August 2006 before deciding to return to his own blog. His blogging career eventually ended altogether. He has a B.A. in Anthropology from The George Washington University,


  1. ken says:

    The Lieberman-Bush policy on terrorism has failed. The proof is that ‘people are plotting’, to use Bushs’ phrase, five years after the attack on America took place.

    A Democrat could have won this war by now.

  2. floyd says:

    connecticut may deserve mr.lamond. the rest of us certainly do not! ken; you so funny, hehehe!

  3. ATS says:

    The way it is playing out now, Lieberman (vide Lanny Davis) was entitled to his Senate seat forever, sort of like the old “Jewish” seat on the Supreme Court. Writing in the WSJ (!), Davis goes out of his way to find nut anti-semites posting at Kos and elsewhere— as if they managed the sites.

    But Joe’s fate (and deportment) finally reminded the voters less of Felix Frankfurter than of Bess Myerson.

  4. jpe says:

    Lieberman attacked Lamont, consistent with his strategy of running as a conservative dem with an (I), and the Times reported it. That’s kinda what newspapers are supposed to do, y’know.

  5. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Ken, we had 8 years with Clinton, and we didn’t win shit. Gave the Chinese supercomputers, North Korea atom bombs, and Bin Laudin a pass, but we didn’t win anything. Which left leaning nearly communist Democrat are you suggesting would win any war. Since WWII, name a war won by a Democratic adminstration?

  6. vnjagvet says:

    Elect ken. He would have had the war over by now.

    Bridges for sale in Brooklyn.

  7. anjin-san says:

    More evil then the nazis? More dangerous then the Soviets (who had conquored and enslaved dozens of countries and had thousands of nukes pointed at us).????

    The man is a bigger idiot then I thought.

  8. LJD says:

    Typical lefties response:

    Al Qaeda, they’re not THAT dangerous!

    But look, five years and we still haven’t won!

    Talk about idiots. You understand nothing of the danger that faces you.

    I suggest a one way ticket to Iran. Let me know how it works out.

  9. madmatt says:

    hey zelsdorf, tell us of a war that wasn’t started by a republican?

  10. Anderson says:

    Once again, Lieberman declares that supporting any policy other than Bush’s is helping the terrorists.

    You want to talk about a line that people will get tired of hearing? That would be it.

    Given that the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED IRAQI GOVERNMENT that we touted to the skies, wants us to get out by some date certain, I think Lieberman and Bush have themselves in a bit of a box. That is, if they had any integrity. Which they don’t.

  11. anjin-san says:


    Try not to have seizure dude. No one said Al-Qaeda is ‘not that dangerous”, certainly not I.

    But to call them “a greater threat then the Soviets” is simply hyperbole.

    It is kind of telling that you feel the constant need to misrepresent the statements of others. If your own arguments were stronger, you would not have to resort to this rather juvenile tactic.

    I have live a large portion of my life with dozens of Soviet nukes pointed pretty much directly at me. If you want to get hysterical every time Cheney says “boo”, that is your business, but I will take a pass.

    This country has lived with serious threats to national security pretty much constantly for the last 70 years. We dealt with it, for the most part, without abandoning our own humanity, ideals, or the constitution.

    Don’t be a sap LJD. The Al-Qaeda threat is real, and very serious. But this government wants you to be in constant fear. People who are afraid are easy to manipulate.