New Haven Independent

Lamont’s speech came in a week during which both Lamont and Lieberman are establishing their positions on Iraq (and surrounding themselves with war veterans) as campaigning resumes in earnest for their Nov. 7 rematch. Lamont defeated three-term incumbent Lieberman in an Aug. 8 Democratic primary; now Lieberman is running as a third-party candidate on the newly-formed “Connecticut for Lieberman” line. Lieberman is expected to deliver his own address on Iraq — the issue that as much as any helped lead to his primary loss; Lieberman has been President Bush’s most prominent Democratic defender of the war.

Lamont Wednesday railed against Bush and his supporters for denying the need to “change the course” and withdraw from a “dangerously wrong” war in Iraq.

Lamont, blaming the Iraq war for draining resources from Afghanistan, proposed adding more special forces and better equipment to the war on terror in Afghanistan. “Today we have five times more troops in Iraq than we do in Afghanistan,” he said. “We spend more in eight weeks in Iraq than we do in an entire year in Afghanistan. These decisions are wrong and they have left us less safe.”

Though the speech was billed as an “education policy” speech, he took many chances to blast Lieberman, turning again to missed Senate votes: “Lieberman could have cast the deciding vote to pass a bill increasing homeland security funding for high-threat urban areas such as Connecticut cities. But the bill was defeated on a tie vote — meaning Lieberman’s missed vote resulted in the bill being killed,” Lamont elaborated in a press release.

A Lieberman spokeswoman hadn’t responded to the charge by press time.

On Iraq, Lamont advocated pulling out on a set timeline. “The Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own future. They will not do so until we make it clear that their fate is in their own hands, not ours. They must carry the responsibility of creating a workable political outcome, and they must own the outcome.

“This will not happen unless we make it clear to the Maliki government that there is a timeline to redeploy our troops.”

In his speech, Lamont said, “Iraq is lurching towards chaos in a civil war with whole provinces lost to insurgents.” A law student asked just what will happen to Iraqis if we pull our troops out now. Responded Lamont: “First of all, I can tell you, every day we’re there the situation is getting worse.” Our “best hope” is to set a timeline for withdrawal, he said. “I think it’s important that we take the American face off this occupation” and reach out to other countries for help. Troops would still be there for humanitarian reasons, reconstuction and political support, he said.

In the rest of his speech, Lamont called for greater military “readiness” and replenishing shortages in military personnel, equipment and training. In the Middle East, he urged, “Today we must stand with Israel.”

President Bush “seems to think that refusing to talk with those who have different interests is a character flaw,” said Lamont. “His administration is trying to isolate Syria and Iran. Instead, we are isolating the United States.”

Lamont called for international cooperation “to confront Iran, engage in tough, no-nonsense negotiations and say to Iran that an active nuclear program is unacceptable.” Differing with Lieberman, Lamont spoke against a bill by Sen. Rick Sanatorum to support regime change in Iran. Lamont said progress will be made through “tough, frank engagement” instead of demanding regime change.

After his under half-an-hour speech, Lamont took tough questions on whether his prompt calls for troop withdrawal in Iraq would create more “bloodshed.” And he responded to a leaflet Lieberman had pointed out alleging the Greenwich businessman had changed positions on Iraq eight times. “Sen. Lieberman has been consistently wrong on Iraq,” countered Lamont. He said he supported the Kerry-Feingold amendment, in which U.S. troops would withdraw by July 1, 2007.

Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun did not respond to specific charges against Lieberman that he missed votes on the above-described homeland security funding bill and on a separate, failed bill that would have provided emergency funding for U.S. troops’ body armor in Iraq.

Sun responded only: “Even in a speech that was billed as an ‘educational policy address’ where he promised to lay out a positive vision, he could do no better than to throw out a bunch of partisan, slashing rhetoric. There were no new constructive ideas and certainly nothing to assure voters that he understands the threats we face not just in Iraq, but around the world, and that he will do what’s right to keep America safe.”

Yale Law Student Stratos Pahis, however, walked away impressed: “He pointed out that Senator Lieberman has kind of toed at Bush’s line in Iraq” and that “we need someone to go there and push the other way.” Responding to Lamont’s lack of political experience, Pahis reckoned: “I think he’s senatorial material. He’s proving slowly that he’s in line with our values.”