Lockhart on LieberLies

Consistent (4.00 / 1)

This was from June:

Lieberman instead said he hopes the number of U.S. troops, estimated now at approximately 133,000, will be fewer than 100,000 by the end of this year or early 2007. The senator said he hopes troop levels will be "well below" 100,000 next summer.

- "Iraq war key topic of Senate race," Susan Haigh, AP, June 16, 2006

---

by: tparty @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:09:58 AM CST

Is he taking yoga lessons? (4.00 / 2)

Amazement and I guess, some shock. That a man his age can get his head so far up his *ss without even grunting at the effort.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:31:47 AM CST

More War For Joe (4.00 / 4)

Rob Sawicki, Lieberman's spokesperson, is quoted as follows in this morning’s Stamford Advocate: "Senator Lieberman has always supported a winning strategy in Iraq. During his most recent trip, he was told by commanders on the ground that more troops were necessary to achieve that goal."

The transcript of the Senate Armed Service Committee meeting of Nov. 15, 2006 establishes that Lieberman had changed his position on troop increases long before his trip to Iraq.  At that meeting, a mere eight days after the election, Lieberman rejected the assessment of Gen. Abizaid (the top “commander on the ground” in Iraq) that increased embedding could be achieved “from within the existing force structure inside Iraq” and instead urged Gen. Abizaid to seek authority to send additional troops to Iraq.  The following exchange took place between Gen. Abizaid and Sen. Lieberman during Gen. Abizaid’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Nov. 15, 2006:

Lieberman:  "General, I want to ask you, you've said that the military transition teams, the American embedded with the Iraqi security forces, are probably having a very significant, positive affect on those forces and that our forces embedded with the Iraqis should be -- I believe you said in your initial testimony -- significantly increased.  How can we do that without increasing the overall number of American troops in Iraq? In other words, I fear that the only other way to do it is to pull our troops out of other danger areas, like Anbar Province, and then they'll fall into more chaos."

Abizaid: "I can't say for sure that we can do it without having to increase our overall troop levels. But I believe that there is a way to make the transition teams more robust from within the existing force structure inside Iraq."

Lieberman:  "I hope that you will take a look at and not hesitate, most directly as the commander in chief, to give you authority to send more troops in if you really feel that the embedding -- and I do feel strongly that the embedding is working best to enable the Iraqi security forces to take over. And it may be that a short-term increase in our forces there, embedded with them, will be the best way for us to more quickly get to a point where we can actually draw down our forces."

This represented a complete repudiation by the Senator of his own “ten point plan” for Iraq, which argued that increased embedding would permit withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  Lieberman's own “ten point plan” for Iraq, which plan was still the operative statement of the Senator’s Iraq policy on election day, Nov. 7, 2006, stated: 

“Sixth, we need to adapt to the new challenges of this new kind of war, by increasing the number of U.S. soldiers embedded in Iraqi units.  This will allow more Americans to come home because embedded troops need less outside support. This should be done by redeploying existing troops, not adding new troops to the region.”

In a period of little more than one week following the election the very strategy that Sen. Lieberman had assured his constituents would allow for troop withrawals – embedding – had instead become the basis for Sen. Lieberman’s call for increased troop levels in Iraq.  Within just eight days of the election Lieberman had gone from believing that increased embedding would permit a withdrawal of troops to worrying that increased embedding could only be achieved by sending more troops to Iraq.  This complete reversal of Lieberman's position on troop increases and the impact of an embedding strategy on force levels in Iraq flatly contradicts Sawicki's claim that this change in Sen. Lieberman’s position resulted from meetings with “commanders on the ground” in Iraq that took place more than month after Sen. Lieberman urged Gen. Abizaid to increase troop levels.

As many of you know, Ollie North and Sen. Susan Collins met with many of the same "commanders on the ground" in Iraq that Lieberman met with, and they understood these commanders to oppose troop increases.  Their reports of their trip to Iraq, together with Lieberman's rejection of Abizaid's assessment at the Senate Armed Services Committee meeting in November, suggests that Joe hears what he wants to hear.  And he always hears calls for more war, more death and more blood.

---

by: Thomas C @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 09:12:01 AM CST

Embedding US commanders already failed (0.00 / 0)

Before the election I had a diary on point number six.

Bottom line - Joe's idea for embedding was shown to be a failure - before he proposed it.

The latest plan to pacify Baghdad—announced in June, declared a failure in October—was called Operation Together Forward. But U.S.-Iraqi togetherness is a sometime thing. Last April, The Washington Post's Jonathan Finer reported from Hawijah, Iraq, on a joint patrol to search for roadside bombs. The Iraqis refused to ride in armored U.S. Humvees, preferring pickup trucks because a cleric told them that anyone killed in an "occupier vehicle" would not go to heaven. Eventually, after threatening them with jail, U.S. Army Lt. Aaron Tapalman browbeat them into Humvees:

"About an hour later, the patrol came across a white bag on the roadside that Tapalman suspected might contain a bomb. When he asked some Iraqi soldiers to move it off the road, their commander balked, saying it wasn't his job. 'It is your job to protect the people,' Tapalman said, increasingly exasperated. 'I can go and move it myself, and you know what? I will, but don't you think your people should see you doing that kind of stuff? Someday we're not going to be here anymore.' The Iraqi soldier declined again, apologetically, and drove away."

(from newsweek)

There's no way to win this war. It's time for politicians (and it is the politicians, not the military who are doing this) to stop pretending there's some way for them to save face.

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to it."

-Lawrence Summers

---

by: joesaho @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 09:46:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Great points! (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for sharing that, Thomas C. ...  Joe is full of crap, as usual.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 09:53:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Joe's 10-lying points (0.00 / 0)

and for what!  The Bush/McCain/Lieberman war machine needs to STOP!  80% of the public do not support this war and yet they're able to continue on as if this doesn't matter.  What is it going to take?  We march, we scream, we write letters, we call our Representatives and yet the war goes on. Bush and Lieberman now tell us to sacrifice NOT MORE troops, but the troops who have ALREADY sacrificed every thing they have, except their life.  That's it; these warmongers won't bear the truth of their own lies until there is NO ONE left to fight their lost war!

---

by: Harriet @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 10:08:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Go easy on Mr. Lockhart (4.00 / 2)

Lockhart's been staying on top of a lot of the issues left over from the campaign. This article on the Lieberlies was an important follow-up to the previous day's piece, which as you rightly point out was a bit weak.

But most of the other CT papers haven't even bothered with this story, so good for Brian and the Stamford Advocate for following up.

Lockhart's also the one who wrote the no-hacking-after-all story, which was picked up by the wire services and other blogs.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 10:04:20 AM CST

For The Reasons You Mention, Brian Lockhart Does Deserve Some Credit (0.00 / 0)

And, as a staff writer, he no doubt has an editor to please.  I know nothing about his editor, but it may be that his editor was much more qualified than Brian to receive Atrios' Wanker Award.

In any case, I wouldn't want to see people going "easy" on them.  A little heat can go a long way toward getting us some real, non-stenographic, reporting.
 

---

by: Brian @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 10:42:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Excellent insights (4.00 / 1)

I have often found your comments remarkably insightful -- some might say prescient, or perhaps omniscient; others shrug and say, "It takes one to know one."

Your willingness to stand up for others who share the similar burdens since birth (or at least since issuance of the certificate) are commendable, or at least, so noted.

What are your thoughts on how to select the editors' names to be mentioned more prominently when people attempt to use criticism to sting the press into paying attention to e.g. "facts"?  If you were in my shoes (but myname is not Brian, so this might not work as well), how could one make certain they had associated the correct editor with the story?  Just pick the editor with the responsibility closest to the story topic?  Or go for broke with the "city" or "news" editor?

I mean, just from your point of view.  Not that you'd  be especially qualified to answer.  Just, you know, since your uncanny sense of what others in similarly named shoes might or could observe.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:37:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks For The Reply (0.00 / 0)

  Love your sense of humor, Greenpeas.

"Your willingness to stand up for others who share the similar burdens since birth (or at least since issuance of the certificate) are commendable, or at least, so noted."

  Yes, we Brians share quite a few burdens.  Take my word for it.  For a Brian, even a day at the beach is "no day at the beach."  We commiserate with each other at monthly meetings of the Society of Brians (the "S.O.B.").  For deeper insight into the challenges of Briandom, I recommend "Monty Python's Life of Brian."

"What are your thoughts on how to select the editors' names to be mentioned more prominently when people attempt to use criticism to sting the press into paying attention to e.g. "facts"?"

  "Junglebook," commenting below, illustrates one successful way to locate and deal with editors. 

"I mean, just from your point of view.  Not that you'd  be especially qualified to answer.  Just, you know, since your uncanny sense of what others in similarly named shoes might or could observe."

  You're right.  I'm not especially qualified to answer. But, that's never stopped me from expressing an opinion.  I'd follow the "Junglebook" approach and write, or even call, an editor and ask them who's responsible for the paper's political coverage.  Many, I think, would be happy to discuss your concerns.  Especially now that striving to be the print equivalent of Fox News is no longer in vogue. 

  Of course, if you have a choice, always contact an editor or reporter named Brian first.

---

by: Brian @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 15:30:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More Lockhart (0.00 / 0)

Lockhart also wrote yesterday's piece on the Blumenthal/Lieberman photo op about Broadwater, nearly half of which questioned Lieberman's stated opposition to Broadwater given his vote in support of the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill.  CtKeith is quoted in this story.

Yesterday, Lockhart had two front-page stories, one the "amnesia" article which earned him the Wanker of the Day designation, and the second the Broadwater article which allowed for criticism of Lieberman.

Today, Lockhart also has two articles-the one on LieberLies and the other on the Krayeske matter (not available online for some reason).  I'm quoted in the second story.

He appears to be doing double-duty, and I'll definitely give him a lot of credit for the follow up story that BranfordBoy highlights today.

---

by: Maura @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:14:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And more amnesia (0.00 / 0)

I'm flabbergasted by this end to Lockhart's story:

Ken Dautrich, a professor of public policy at the University of Connecticut, said Lieberman cannot be accused of misleading voters. Dautrich did not recall Lieberman campaigning for or against bolstering American forces in Iraq.

Dautrich is often the go-to guy in all the CT newspapers for quotes on politics.  For him to be so utterly misinformed is appalling.

---

by: Maura @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:18:09 AM CST

Maura, where have you been? (0.00 / 0)

Dautrich has been producing these clunkers throughout. Take this fucking gem:

"Lieberman will do more for Democratic House candidates by being in the race than by not being in the race," said Ken Dautrich, a professor of public policy at the University of Connecticut. "It's plausible that all three [GOP House incumbents] will fall, and it's more likely if Lieberman is running as an independent."

WaPo, Aug 10/06

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:27:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ugh (0.00 / 0)

Wow.  I missed THAT one!  Of course, there are still some deluded Dems (there were plenty in the 4th) who thought it was fine to support Lieberman and Farrell - that supporting Lieberman wouldn't hurt Farrell at all.  There was no reasoning with them at all, even in the face of clear evidence that Lieberman and Shays were working together to increase Republican turnout. 

What an ignoramus.

---

by: Maura @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:45:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I could give you literally dozens more (4.00 / 1)

..equally as bad.

Dautrich is not misinformed either. He gets his daily taking points sheet like all the rest of 'em. /snark

---

by: Scarce @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 11:48:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Who do you think is good? Any suggestions? (0.00 / 0)

Have you come across some really sharp political scientists who might be good places for members of the press to seek quotes or editors to suggest to reporters to seek quotes (skewering further up the food chain)?  And --if you know -- are there specific issues or bodies or legislators on whom they tend to be most highly informed?

You (or anyone else - students, political observers, colleagues) might consider posting them here as part of Maura's version of showing up. 

Some day some MSM reporters or even editors might stumble across MLN and discover your treasure trove of names.

Stranger things have happened.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:52:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have one... (4.00 / 1)

Clyde Weed at Southern Connecticut State - he is a Republican, but a fairly moderate one who has done some radio work in the past.  He knows his stuff and doesn't care about talking points - and is willing to give all sides a fair hearing...

Disclosure - he was my advisor for my masters in poli sci.

---

by: Gabe @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 18:18:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I've Called Out Dautrich (0.00 / 0)

I just the following message to the esteemed Mr. Dautrich and copied Brian Lockhart.  For the record, I commend Mr. Lockhart as well, but his inclusion of Dautrich's assessment, which is so completely contradicted by Lieberman's call for troop withdrawal in his "ten point plan", is a prime example of "on the other hand" journalism.

Here's the message to Dautrich:

Mr. Dautrich has stated in the most unambiguous terms that I was strongly misinformed when I interpreted Sen. Lieberman’s “ten point plan” on Iraq to advocate the withdrawal of U.S. troops.  Mr. Dautrich, would you be willing to explain to me why I was incorrect to infer from Point Six of Sen. Lieberman’s plan that he advocated withdrawal of troops?  Here is the text of Point Six:

“Sixth, we need to adapt to the new challenges of this new kind of war, by increasing the number of U.S. soldiers embedded in Iraqi units.  This will allow more Americans to come home because embedded troops need less outside support. This should be done by redeploying existing troops, not adding new troops to the region.”

It would appear beyond debate that Sen. Lieberman’s plan advocated increased embedding.  It further appears beyond debate that Sen. Lieberman’s plan contemplated that increased embedding would permit “more Americans to come home because embedded troops need less outside support.”  Is it Mr. Dautrich’s contention that although Sen. Lieberman advocated embedding that he did not advocate that which the Senator believed would be the consequence of increased embedding, i.e., the withdrawal of U.S. troops?  Is it Mr. Dautrich’s contention that although Sen. Lieberman believed that embedding would permit “more Americans to come home” that he could nonetheless oppose the withdrawal that his “ten point plan” stated would be facilitated by embedding?  On what basis does Mr. Dautrich draw these exceedingly fine distinctions in Sen. Lieberman’s “ten point plan” for Iraq?

Admittedly, I may have been confused by the August 2, 2006 article in the New York Times entitled “Lieberman Backs Troop Withdrawal but not Timetable of Other Democrats.”  (http://select.nytime...).  But it seems to me rather harsh to characterize my understanding of Sen. Lieberman’s position as “strongly misinformed.”  Mr. Dautrich, did I misinterpret Sen. Lieberman’s “ten point plan”, which he unveiled last September 25th and repeatedly referred to for the balance of the campaign?  Was I wrong to have relied on this statement of Sen. Lieberman’s policy, which purported to be his official statement on Iraq policy?

I would ask you, Mr. Dautrich, to take this opportunity to revise your characterization of those of us in CT who interpreted the Senator’s official Iraq Plan to advocate troop withdrawals, and to apprise Mr. Lockhart of any such revised characterization.  Failing that, I would ask Mr. Lockhart to follow-up by authoring another article on this subject that quotes more fully from Point Six of Sen. Lieberman’s “ten point plan” and that includes Sen. Lieberman’s contention that “This will allow more Americans to come home because embedded troops need less outside support.”  While Mr. Dautrich is entitled to his opinion, it strikes me odd that the Stamford Advocate would feel compelled to cite such opinion when it flies so completely in the face of the Senator’s advocacy of troop withdrawal in his campaign’s official statement on Iraq policy.

---

by: Thomas C @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:07:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

thanks for showing up (0.00 / 0)

as in showing up

Cogent, excellent, well researched. 

And this is what journalistic research should look like.

Where is the NY TImes and all its quote databanks now?

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:33:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Work Those Refs (4.00 / 1)

Hey, I just wanted to try and claim one-tenth of one percent of the credit for the Lieber-update story from Lockhart.  Granted, it started with me reading Atrios, then pumping out a typically rude "working the refs" letter to Lockhart's editor.  But then the editorial staff started writing back - first insulting me and mocking my relative anonymity.

So, I de-escalated, though in a sarcastic manner.

Then, as if hollered at by higher forces, Advocate staffers were coming back, emailing me and apologizing - and saying they were going to look into the flip-flop issue. 

Lesson: Work those refs!

Jb

I wrote Lockhart's editor:

Gosh, what a bad reporter Lockhart is.

Liebermen, before the election, said we should pull out - like, by now.

After the election, he's all Mr. Manly Surge.

And you don't point out the conveniently-timed change of positions.

Hmm, maybe you're a talentless hack, too, protecting your corporate owners - just like Lieberman.

Jb

His editor wrote back:

and maybe you like to hide behind these foolish pseudonyms like some
third-grader shooting spitballs from the back of the class

(and he copied this jaunty reply to two other Advocate staffers)

Then another Advocate executive wrote to me:

Wow, lucky us. I love anonymous attacks. I envy the manly courage they
require the writer to muster.

I replied:

Dear (X & Y):

Well, you sure demolished my critique of Lockhart's stenography in his Lieberman coverage. Sorry I called you a talentless hack.

You're right, my slight anonymity certainly relieves Lieberman (and Lockhart) from any accountability.

My bad.

Jb

ps: I won't darken your inboxes again. I'm clearly not manly enough to criticize the Advocate.

His editor wrote back:

Actually, we take criticism well, and Brian and I had this discussion
shortly after we got your e-mail, which raises a valid point -- AND one we
intend to pursue. Quite honestly, we have had one too many snide and
anonymous attacks during the election and we are short-tempered. So I
apologize for that. You may not believe this, but Brian has no preferences
politically one way or the other. We are on your story idea. Again, I didn't
mean to be so rude.
(X)

The other exec wrote back:

Dear JB -

I apologize for insulting you. It is your right to criticize a reporter who
works for this paper, though I would suggest that a signed letter to the
editor or a phone call pointing out our shortcomings would be more
constructive and courteous.

Courtesy seems to be lacking in all conversation these days and clearly I am
no exception.

Brian Lockhart is looking into the matter you pointed out. If you wish to
talk to him, call 203.299.5534 or e-mail brian.lockhart@scni.com.

Again, my apologies,
(Y)

---

by: Junglebook @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 13:01:19 PM CST

Good for you!!!! (0.00 / 0)

and it's great to see they had to eat some humble pie!  I can't believe this statement however:  "we have had one too many snide and anonymous attacks during the election and we are short-tempered."

Apparently, it NEVER occurred to them to look into the "attacks" to see if they were valid or not since Lieberman kept getting the benefit of the doubt. This is the epitome of lazy reporting! Well, now it's a little too late for apologizes – we need ACCOUNTABILITY and it appears Junklebook the only people who get insulted are the ones that fall under the adage: "the truth hurts"  This is part of Joe's problem as well; he can't bear to look truth in the eye because "his selfish agenda" is all that matters!

 

---

by: Harriet @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 13:29:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

thanks for showing up (4.00 / 1)

Maura's definition, as in:
http://www.myleftnut...

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 14:49:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Great job, JB! (4.00 / 1)

... and I'm glad that Brian and the Advocate responded the way they did (finally). I've written similar letters to the Times that were completely ignored, or that came back with some irrational justification for their shitty reporting.

So good job to you for sticking it to them, and good for the Advocate for recognizing the lapse in coverage.

Also, thanks for sharing the email address. It's a good thing to have, so when we have some suggestions on stories, comments on coverage -- good and bad -- we know where to send them. 

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 18:05:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Welcome back, Eschatonians! (0.00 / 0)

So, do you think that Wankerdom has really been left behind by this ONE article? We here in Connecticut are in the 'wait and see' mode.

---

by: Sue @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 15:33:36 PM CST

Maybe I've missed something (0.00 / 0)

but who in hell voted for LIEberman because they thought he was for troop reductions and exiting Iraq?

Whatever Joey said during the campaign, he's right, his [true] position has never really changed which is why I and many other CT voters who want out of Iraq (as well as a true progressive senator) voted for Ned Lamont. That's my recollection. The rest is overthink nitpicking that seems to have little to do with reality. As much as I despise Joey and his breed of right-wing ideological warmongering, fearmongering positions, I think it has always been very clear what he has stood for regardless of the typical (and transparent) political equivocating during the campaign.

Lieberman was and is (and given his age, will always be) a warmonger who is fixated on hammer and nail deplomacy.

---

by: FairTrade @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 16:06:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's the people who did miss something who voted for Joe (0.00 / 0)

I talked to so many people in the last week before the election who said they hadn't decided, or hadn't though enough about it. A lot of them were against the war. If it weren't for the GOTV voter outreach and some good ads, the margin for lieberman would have been MUCH higher with a lot of people against the war / escalation getting fooled by Lieberman's lies. Don't underestimate how overloaded some working folk are, they have almost no free time to read news or webbrowse as they make their decision.

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to it."

-Lawrence Summers

---

by: joesaho @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 16:47:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually... (0.00 / 0)

...from my experience running phone banks and taking nightly statistics of who was supporting Lieberman and why, I can tell you that Lieberman's statements about troop reductions and "no one wants to end the war more than me" DID make a difference. 

I don't think anyone voted for Joe because they thought he was more of a champion of ending the war than Lamont.  But I do think there were people on the fence who said, essentially, well, they both want to end the war as quickly as possible and bring the troops home.  But I know Lieberman more, so I guess I'll stick with him rather than this rich guy who doesn't have experience.

Was it a 100K vote difference?  Perhaps not.  But the cumulative effect of Lieberman being able to say one thing and then do another DID cost Lamont the election. 

---

by: Maura @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 17:08:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That was my experience too (0.00 / 0)

When I was phone banking, I heard the same thing. "Joe's wrong about the war, but he wants to bring the troops home." Or "he'll come around on the war." Etc.

It gave voters an excuse -- false hope -- to vote for Joe again. You're exactly right in that it DID make a difference.

---

by: CaptCT @ Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 18:11:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]