New Haven Independent

Both candidates have sought to speak about more than the Iraq War since the Aug. 8 Democratic primary in which that issue more than any other helped Lamont humiliate the three-term incumbent. Now that he’s running as a third-party “Connecticut for Lieberman” candidate, Lieberman has sought to change the subject from a topic on which most of Connecticut disagrees with him. Lamont, needing to appeal to independent voters, has sought to establish his credentials as a candidate who can speak about more than one issue.

But the disclosure Sunday of the findings of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the war short-circuited all the channel-changing. The report, prepared by the country’s 16 intelligence agencies, concluded that the Iraq War has made Iraq, America and the world more dangerous, not less, and has sparked more terrorism.

The report ricocheted through Congressional races across the country, including Connecticut’s Senate race, in which candidates have differed on the Iraq War. Lieberman was the most prominent Democratic supporter of the war. He repeatedly argued, until now, that the war has improved the lot of Iraq and helped the cause of the war on terrorism. Lamont has argued the opposite.

As it happened, Lieberman had a speech scheduled Monday about Iraq. He prepared it after delivering another foreign policy speech in which he talked about everything but the Iraq War — then faced questions about why.

In Monday’s address, before a VFW in East Hampton, Lieberman called for “getting the job done” rather than “giving up,” which is how he characterized Ned Lamont’s call for a troop withdrawal. Lieberman called for redploying existing American troops to Iraq. Lieberman fled before reporters could question him following his speech. (Click here for Christine Stuart’s report.)

“We must increase by two or three times the number of U.S. soldiers embedded in Iraqi units, including special forces personnel who can be involved in both training of Iraqis as well as civil affairs missions, and increase the compensation and career rewards for those who take on this critical role,” Lieberman said in his address.

Click here to read the full text of Lieberman’s speech.

In the course of the speech, Lieberman sought to turn a liability into a strength by invoking the National Intelligence Estimate — and cast it as a rebuke of Lamont, not of him. He folded the point into a question on which he and Lamont disagree: whether the U.S. should set a deadline for withdrawing forces.

If the U.S. leaves Iraq on a deadline, that will embolden terrorists and make the chaos there worse, Lieberman argued. “This point is underscored by the National Intelligence Estimate that was reported on yesterday,” he said. “As bad as the terrorist situation on the ground is now in Iraq and all over the world, the NIE suggests that it will only grow exponentially worse if we follow the Lamont plan and rush our troops out to meet an arbitrary, politically pre-set deadline nine months from now.”

That last part — “nine months from now” — was the Swiss cheese in the trap. Lamont never called for withdrawing troops in nine months. He said he would have voted for a bill before the Senate three months ago, sponsored by U.S. Sens. John Kerry and Russell Feingold, that would have withdrawn troops by next July, or a year from its passage. That bill failed; Lieberman voted against it. Now that date is three months closer.

But while not accurate, the statement was a lure to change the subject from the NIE’s devastating critique of a position Lieberman has advanced for three and a half years. If he could get the question before Lamont, and keep it there.

Which is what happened, an hour after the speech, in New Haven.

Nine Months & Counting

It didn’t land there at first. Because the event started a bit too early.

Lamont’s campaign organized a “roundtable” at Naples Pizza to capitalize on the report. It brought eight other white guys (someone in charge apparently skipped Photo Op 101) — three Baby Boomer war vets (of course), four Yalies, and a School of Management professor — around a table to “discuss” (i.e. echo-chamber) the Iraq War. Lamont sat at the head of the empty table (no pizza or beer in sight) offering comments, listening intently, throwing in a few questions.

CNN was already there, along with some local reporters. Lamont said he’d just read Lieberman’s speech. “I’m not really sure he read the National Intelligence Estimate,” Lamont quipped. “The war in Iraq has made America more vulnerable and the world a more dangerous place,” inspiring a new generation of terrorists, he said. “He [Lieberman] thinks we can win this thing militarily. I think he’s wrong. I think President Bush is wrong on that.”

He called instead for a “smarter and more effective war on terror” with money and troops shifted to Afghanistan, and to homeland security at our own ports and chemical and nuclear plants.

Then he went around the room, asking each supporter to talk. The point here wasn’t to debate and make policy. It was to slam Lieberman with the NIE whip before the cameras and the press corps.

Which eventually did show up. Most of the regular campaign contingent was in East Hampton for the Lieberman speech and raced to New Haven for Lamont’s response; the 1:30 start at the Naples event didn’t leave them enough time. (The Lieberman speech ended after 1.)

However, the roundtable was still assembled when the Times, the Courant, Channels 3 and 8 and the rest of the campaign reporters showed up. They started firing questions — ammunition loaded by Lieberman’s speech. They pressed Lamont: Did he, as Lieberman charged, support a firm “deadline” nine months away?

The questions kept coming, because Lamont didn’t answer them clearly. He did point out that the “nine months” line was inaccurate. But that kept the discussion on the picayune point — does he or does he not support a “nine-month” pullout — rather than the larger questions.

And he said he did support a “deadline.” But, as in recent weeks, he used the phrase “timeline” interchangeably. Lieberman anticipated this in his speech. He said Lamont had “tried to fudge his extreme position by starting to call it a ‘timeline,’ perhaps because polls show the word is more popular than ‘deadline.’”

Furthermore, Lamont said he didn’t care whether the deadline, or timeleline, was 12 or 18 months, as long as the commanders on the ground set a deadline. It was a coherent point. But Lieberman had succeeded in making the number, not the question, a topic of discussion.

Amid the questioning, one of Lamont’s invited roundtablers, Yale School of Management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld (pictured), an expert on CEOs, jumped in with plain language.

“You can’t plan without deadlines,” Sonnenfeld said. “It makes no sense.” He further argued that CEOs, who largely voted for George Bush, have now been largely critical of his handling of the Iraq war because of such non-sensical strategic planning in its conduct.

Lamont spoke of a need for “tough love”: Forcing Iraqis to take control of the situation by showing, through a deadline, that the U.S. will not stay there indefinitely.

The nine months question, and the deadline question, followed Lamont to the Wall Street sidewalk outside Naples. He continued saying that nine months wasn’t the issue, that Lieberman had mischaracterized that bill. And he sought to shift the spin on the day’s news. “Joe Lieberman has been consistently wrong on the war in Iraq for three and a half years,” he said. “Now we have a mess on our hands. It is time to change course.”