Antiwar Candidate Backs Israeli Strikes [Lamont]

[Purveyor]

July 28, 2006

The anti-Iraq War challenger in Connecticut's upcoming Democratic primary has issued strong statements backing Israel's military operations in Lebanon, but his campaign boosters are being painted as anti-Israel by supporters of Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Greenwich, Conn., businessman Ned Lamont, who holds a slight lead in the polls over Lieberman, told the Forward that he supports Israel's current operations in Gaza and Lebanon, and that he disagreed with the European Union's declaration that criticized Israel's actions as a "disproportionate" response.

"When we're dealing with Hezbollah and Hamas, who are both dedicated to the elimination of Israel, it's a little presumptuous of us to say what's proportionate and what's not from over here on this side of the Atlantic," Lamont said. "I don't think it's for the United States to dictate how Israel tactically defends itself."

On July 22, Lamont campaigned with two Democratic members of the House of Representatives — Maxine Waters of California and Marcy Kaptur of Ohio — who also have called for an end of American military involvement in Iraq. Some Lieberman backers are pointing to the legislators' support of Lamont in an effort to raise doubts about Lamont's commitment to Israel.

---snip---

http://www.forward.com/articles/8190

[Greeby]

1. *sigh*

Will someone have a word with Ned?

[whistle]

2. Say what?

[RethugAssKicker]

3. No political figure will criticize Israel !.... Does anyone

know of one ?

[Totally Committed]

5. Sadly, no.

AIPAC is too powerful... it is impossible to win an election without them.

TC

[Master Mahon]

6. Smear Campaigns

and the 'liberal media' will destroy anyone that does!

[Tom Joad]

8. At the risk of repeating myself, that is why we must stop AIPAC.

http://www.stopaipac.org

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

23. Agreed. They all kneel and worship at the AIPAC altar...

...to do otherwise is a political career ender and they know it.

[Totally Committed]

31. Is there really anything we can do to stop them?

They are literally using our aid money to bribe and extort the people we elect to represent us to do THEIR bidding, not ours. I just don't see that changing any time soon.

TC

[MarkDevin]

19. Jonathan Tasini did.

[oasis]

24. What'd Tasini say, and how many would qualify it as "criticizing Israel"?.

:shrug:

[MarkDevin]

26. Read about it here.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0727-22.htm

[Totally Committed]

29. I was so proud of Tasini's statement!

That took real guts in the middle of a campaign in NY State.

Bravo to him!

TC

[Tom Joad]

4. Kind of a contradiction in terms, ain't it.

Certainly aint worth sending money to this man, especially since he can buy his own senate seat.

What we need to do in this country is to stop lobbies that promote unconditional support for Israel's war-making. http://www.stopaipac.org STOP AIPAC!

[Tom Joad]

7. Is Olmert going to kiss Lamont? Will Joe and Lamont fight over him?

[Reckon]

9. Then Lamont supported the Iraq war as well

because it was fought for the very same reason.

I hate to say it, but the regular people in this country does not have a voice.

[Sparkly]

11. When did Iraq attack us? nt

[Reckon]

13. I'm saying the Iraq war was fought for the benefit of Israel

AND it's the same reason Bu$h will go after the rest of the ME countries.

The "same NeoCons" that control our foreign policy, also develop Israeli foreign policy.

[Josh]

18. That's just not true -

A strong Iran is far worse to Israel's security than Saddam in power in Iraq was. The invasion of Iraq gave rise to Ahmadinejad, who poses a real concern for Israel.

[Reckon]

22. I didn't say everything is going the way the NeoCons thought it would.

Iraq was just the first step. But they have plans to fix the mess they've made. My guess is they will only make things worse.

[Josh]

28. Well, no argument there -

they define their own reality, which increasingly completely divorced from the real one.

[ima_sinnic]

10. now I don't care if Lamont wins or loses, and I regret sending him $$

--and I am going to write and tell him so.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. Is he running for a seat on the US Senate or the Knesset?

Do people really think that the main job of a US senator is to represent the interests of Israel?:banghead:

[ray of light]

14. diplomacy is always the first choice.

[Zhade]

15. Keep in mind, this is the Forward we're talking about.

They may - MAY - be misquoting Lamont.

If not, fuck his stance - but I still hope he beats Lieberman, since he's better on other issues.

But not happy if this is true.

[MarkDevin]

20. No, they didn't misquote Lamont.

I was recently at a meet-and-greet for the candidate. When asked about the Middle East situation, Lamont said virtually the same thing cited in the original post. Suffice it to say, I was disappointed n the man for that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Fortunately, it's not about ned...it's about Joe.

Best picture ever!

[nickshepDEM]

17. DINO BUSH LOVER !@#$~%~ @#%!@#!@#$^!@#$&&

[unkachuck]

21. I'm not happy....

....at all with Lamonts' statement....but at this point, it's about Party control....the more the power-brokers want Joe, the more Joe has to go....

....we drew line in the sand with Lamont, hang in there....

[malikstein]

25. So, basically,

Lamont plays imperialism-lite, to Lieberman's imperialism-heavy.

Is there an anti-imperialist, pro-republic party in the US? Have we crossed the Rubicon for good?

[MarkDevin]

27. "Is there an anti-imperialist, pro-republic party in the US?"

There's always the Greens.

[MrsT]

30. So now Lamont is only 99% better than Lieberman.

Oh well.