Why the change? Probably because Lieberman ACTUALLY STARTED TALKING ABOUT HIS POSITION ON IRAQ. Ahem. See the Times story (which they doubtless printed against their will).
That’s something that separates me from my opponent – I don’t hate Republicans. I know that some times the best way to get things done in the Senate for my constituents is through bipartisan cooperation. That doesn’t make me a bad Democrat. It makes me a better Senator.
On Iraq, as you know, I supported the resolution giving the President the authority to use force to take out Saddam Hussein, as did most Senate Democrats. I still believe that was right.
What I don’t think is right, as I have said over and over again, are many of the Bush Administration’s decisions regarding the execution of the war. The fact is, I have openly and clearly disagreed with and criticized the President for, among other things:
* not winning the support of our allies in the run-up to the war;
* not having a plan to win the peace;
* not putting enough troops on the ground;
* putting an American in charge of the Iraqi oil supply.
And I said that if I were President, I would ask Secretary Rumsfeld to resign. I first said that in October 2003.
But if we simply give up and pull out now, like my opponent wants to do, then it would be a disaster to Iraq and to us. We would run a high risk of allowing Iraq to become like Afghanistan when the Taliban were in charge, and Al Qaeda had safe haven from which to strike us.
[...]
The big difference between my opponent and me is that I believe in solving problems. That you can remain true to Democratic ideals and find common ground to get things done for your constituents. That you can be compassionate in domestic policy and tough in foreign policy. That you can stand up for progressive values and still work with the other side to help people make a better life for themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment