Letter From Ned Lamont to Sen. Lieberman: National Intelligence Estimate Finds the War in Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe

Senator Joseph Lieberman
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Lieberman:

As I am sure you have seen, the New York Times today reported that the National Intelligence Estimate in April concludes “that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.” The NIE represents the consensus view of the U.S. government’s 16 major intelligence agencies. The Times notes that the Iraq War is a major “reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology” and cites one intelligence official acknowledging that the NIE “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse.” Let me put this news in terms that you can clearly understand: Our own intelligence agencies now confirm that the Iraq War is undermining America’s security and credibility at our nation’s peril.

With this report being released on the eve of your major address on Iraq, I and thousands of other citizens in Connecticut expect to hear your response to this news in your speech, considering you have echoed President Bush’s claim that the Iraq War has made our country safer, and that staying the course will help keep us safe. As the NIE now shows, that is absolutely not the case – in fact, the Iraq War has and continues to unnecessarily endanger U.S. national security. Never again can a political leader claim otherwise, lest they deliberately ignore the concrete facts presented to us by our intelligence agencies.

As you know, I have consistently called for the redeployment of American troops from Iraq, saying this is the best way to protect U.S. national security. With the Iraqis having written a constitution and held elections – both of which occurred based on timelines set by the United States in coordination with Iraqi leaders – it is clear now that the best way for the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their country’s security is for our troops to begin to redeploy. An open-ended commitment justified by “stay the course” mantras as you and President Bush have echoed both endangers U.S. national security and does a disservice to our soldiers who are serving in Iraq. Our troops themselves fundamentally understand this: Just a few months ago, a survey of almost 1,000 soldiers serving in Iraq said they believe we should redeploy within a year.

Attached to this letter, you will find a side-by-side comparison juxtaposing your words with your actions – and as you can see, the gap between the two has been wide. I am hopeful that in your speech tomorrow you will address all of these troubling discrepancies. I also hope you will answer the following specific questions that Connecticut citizens understandably have about your conduct as it relates to the war.

• Governor Tom Kean and former Rep. Lee Hamilton – bipartisan chairs of the 9-11 commissions – both agree that Iraq has diverted attention from the war on terror. USA Today and the Washington Post have both reported that the Iraq War diverted critical resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And now, as mentioned above, the National Intelligence Estimate states that the Iraq War has caused terrorism to increase and spread throughout the world. Do you accept these conclusions? If so, why do you continue to insist we need no change in Iraq policy and that our military resources must stay in Iraq indefinitely? And in light of all of this, how can you still claim Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror?
• In recent weeks, your campaign has told reporters that you have “repeatedly and harshly criticized the Bush administration” for its Iraq policy. Yet, you were the primary author of the Senate resolution backing the Iraq War policy, and, as the New Yorker noted just last year, you have since been “unapologetic about [your] defense of Bush’s Iraq policy.” As you told that magazine, “Bottom line, I think Bush has it right.” At the time the article was printed, Iraq had just experienced two of the deadliest attacks in the growing insurgency, and its neighbors told international media that they feared a civil war was already underway inside the country. Can you explain why you are now claiming to have always been a critic of this war, when the facts show otherwise? And can you explain why you continue to defend the Bush administration’s conduct of this war, when it’s execution has been so severely flawed and as a result severely compromised our national security?
• Few argue that one way a U.S. Senator can honor our troops is to fulfill his/her most basic responsibility by casting votes on the Iraq War. Yet, Senate records show you have skipped roughly half of all U.S. Senate votes on the Iraq War – even when they were on the most critical life-and-death issues. As just one example, you skipped a critical vote on legislation by Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd that would have provided critical funding for protective gear for troops serving in combat. This was especially critical, considering Newsweek now reports that up to “one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them” and “thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs.” Your campaign has explained that you decide whether to show up to vote based on whether your vote sways the outcome. Do you agree that your logic is flawed and detrimental to our troops given the incredible power each vote yields in holding the President accountable? Do you agree that if every senator followed your logic that the Senate would be a useless entity in terms of standing up for the citizens they are meant to serve?
• As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, you heard first hand the testimony from the former Generals from the first Gulf War about the incredible dangers of invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam, and becoming occupiers in a hostile land. Yet, in 2005, you publicly attacked those who raised questions about the conduct of the war for supposedly “undermin[ing] presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.” Do you agree now that their predictions have held true and do you bear any special responsibility for ignoring those warnings and attacking those who want Congress to hold this administration accountable?
• In your first campaign commercial after losing the Democratic primary in 2006, you said “I want to help end the war in Iraq.” Yet, you have opposed every single resolution in Congress that would urge an end to the Iraq War. In fact, you cast the deciding vote against legislation to merely demand the Bush administration better inform Congress of its strategy for victory in Iraq. How can you tell Connecticut citizens that you “want to help end the war in Iraq” when you have used Connecticut’s Senate seat to oppose ending the war in Iraq and continue to stifle any responsible debate about America’s future course in Iraq?
• In the lead up to the war, you said you supported invasion because Saddam Hussein supposedly had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). After reports in 2004 and 2005 showed that was not the case, you repeated the baseless assertion that he did have WMD and was cited by one Connecticut paper for “dancing” around the issue. Now, just a few weeks ago, you told a national radio host that the WMD argument for war was merely “a nice side benefit” and that you would have supported the invasion even if the public knew there were no WMD. Why did you use WMD to publicly justify your support for the war, and now say you would have supported the war even if there were no WMD? If we didn’t go to war over WMD, why exactly did we go to war with Saddam when he was not working with terrorists, had no WMD, and therefore presented no imminent threat? And, would you now support invading other countries that do have WMD and pose a more imminent threat?
• Last week on statewide television, you said “I have seen no evidence that Iraq was tied to 9/11.” Your comments came after you refused to answer questions about the recent U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report finding absolutely no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein’s government and Al Qaeda. Yet, in 2003, you appeared on national television justifying your strong support of the war by saying: “I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists – I’ve seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.” Why did you make this explosive charge in 2003 and say you had evidence to back it up, but now admit you have no evidence to support it?

Senator Lieberman, I sincerely hope you will provide answers to these questions in your speech, because there are many who feel that Time Magazine was correct when it wrote that when it comes to Iraq, “Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he’s completely lost the plot or he knows he’s spinning a line.” Clearly, Iraq is the most pressing national issue of our time and like many others, I was perplexed a few weeks ago when you gave a major speech on national security but failed to publicly explain your position on Iraq. As one newspaper editorial said, “Any politician worth his salt should know what he thinks about Iraq, off the top of his head – and he should be willing and able to articulate it.” Similarly, thousands of Connecticut citizens are perplexed that you have skipped half of all U.S. Senate votes on the subject, including votes that occurred while you were in Washington, D.C.

At a time of war, our state and our country needs leaders in Congress who are willing to speak frankly with the public and who are willing to fulfill their constitutional obligations to hold the executive branch accountable. Our troops serving in combat and the millions of citizens concerned about this war deserve no less.

Sincerely,

Ned Lamont
Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate

---

RHETORIC vs. REALITY: Senator Lieberman’s Words on Iraq Versus His Actions

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN CLAIMS TO WANT TO END THE IRAQ WAR: In his first campaign commercial after losing the Democratic primary in 2006, Lieberman said “I want to help end the war in Iraq.” [Source: National Journal, 8/11/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN VOTED AGAINST ALL LEGISLATION TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ: Lieberman has opposed every single resolution in Congress that would urge an end to the Iraq War. On 11/15/05, Lieberman was one of only 5 Democrats to vote against legislation “that would have pressured the administration to outline a plan to draw down U.S. forces in Iraq,” according to the Washington Post. On 6/22/06, Lieberman voted against two pieces of legislation pushing Bush to draft an exit strategy from Iraq. According to the Boston Globe, one was a “proposal to withdraw US troops from Iraq within a year” and another was a “nonbinding amendment that would have called on President Bush to begin withdrawing troops by the end of 2006 and to make ‘phased redeployments’ out of Iraq thereafter.” [Washington Post, 11/16/05; Senate Roll Call Vote #322, 11/15/05; Senate Roll Call Vote #182 and #181, 6/22/06; Boston Globe, 6/23/06]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN CLAIMS TO HAVE NEVER PUSHED THE IRAQ-AL QAEDA STORYLINE: Days after the release of a Senate report debunking the myth of ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, Lieberman appeared on Face the State to claim, “I have seen no evidence that Iraq was tied to 9/11.” [Source: Face the State, 9/17/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN PUSHED FALSE IRAQ/AL QAEDA TIES TO JUSTIFY THE IRAQ WAR: On 12/15/03, Lieberman went on national television to push the myth that evidence existed tying Iraq to the 9/11 terrorists. “I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists,” he said. “I’ve seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.” [Source: MSNBC’s Hardball, 12/15/03]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN SAYS HE HAS STRONGLY OPPOSED BUSH ON IRAQ: On 9/9/06 Lieberman’s campaign claimed to the New Haven register that Lieberman “has repeatedly and harshly criticized the Bush administration” for the War in Iraq. [Sources: New Haven Register, 9/9/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN HAS BEEN THE CHIEF DEFENDER OF BUSH’S IRAQ POLICY: The New Yorker noted just last year that Lieberman has been “unapologetic about his defense of Bush’s Iraq policy.” Lieberman told the magazine that “Bottom line, I think Bush has it right.” [Source: New Yorker, 3/21/05]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN CLAIMS TO HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED GETTING MORE INFO ON IRAQ: After skipping a key vote to force the White House to provide more concrete reports on the status of Iraq, Lieberman told the Hartford Courant he has always supported that goal. “Why not have more information?” he asked. [Source: Hartford Courant, 9/13/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN CAST DECIDING VOTE AGAINST IRAQ REPORTING LEGISLATION: According to Senate records, in 2004, Lieberman cast the deciding vote against legislation “To require reports on the efforts of the President to stabilize Iraq and relieve the burden on members of the Armed Forces of the United States deployed in Iraq.” Had Lieberman not voted against the legislation, it would have moved forward. Instead, it died in a Senate debate decided by one vote. [Source: Senate Roll Call Vote #138, 6/23/04]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN DENIES HE EVER SAID HE SUPPORTED INDEFINITE DEPLOYMENTS IN IRAQ: As recently as August 20th, Lieberman has appeared on national television claiming “I’ve never been for an indefinite, unconditional deployment of American troops” and insisting that such assertions were a “distortion that my opponent managed to convince too many people” about. [Sources: CBS Face the Nation, 8/20/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN SAID HE SUPPORTS PERMANENT DEPLOYMENTS IN IRAQ: In 2003, Lieberman told CNN: “We may, over the long term, with the consent of the new Iraqi government, establish some permanent bases in Iraq. And wouldn’t that be a dramatic change, where we have an allied government there in Iraq, at the center of the Middle East, where we may have not a permanent police presence, but one or another military base that’s working in cooperation with the government there?” [Source: CNN, 4/20/03]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN SAID HE SUPPORTED IRAQ INVEASION BECAUSE OF WMD: Introducing the Iraq War Resolution on Oct. 2, 2002, Lieberman declared that Saddam ‘has continued, without question, to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them on distant targets.’” As the Norwich Bulletin reported, “the weapons of mass destruction Saddam supposedly stockpiled [was] a key factor Bush and Lieberman cited in arguing for an invasion.” On 6/25/04, Lieberman told CNN that “Iraq did pose a threat to us” because “they had weapons of mass destruction.” He said this long after CNN reported that President Bush’s chief weapons inspector, David Kay, told Congress that “his group [of inspectors] found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.” [CNN, 6/25/04; CNN, 1/25/04; Norwich Bulletin, 12/26/05]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN SAYS WMD WAS A “SIDE BENEFIT”; WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED WAR ANYWAY: On Glenn Beck’s national radio show on 8/22/06, Lieberman agreed with the host that the WMD rationale that he pushed as a justification for war was merely “a nice side benefit” and that the Iraq War was really a vehicle for other objectives. Beck said, “The weapons of mass destruction was a nice side benefit. We were trying to go and pop the head of the snake in Iran. That’s what we were trying to do. And I don’t think anybody had the courage or could actually come out and say that with world politics the way they are.” Lieberman immediately agreed, saying “You’re right.” [Glenn Beck radio show, 8/22/06]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN SAYS HE’S LONG WANTED RUMSFELD TO RESIGN: Lieberman has said he has long tried to push for a change of leadership at the Pentagon because of the Iraq War. In an 8/31/06 press release the Lieberman campaign said “three weeks ago on CBS’s Face the Nation, Senator Lieberman said unequivocally that the Bush Administration needs a change in leadership and a change in direction at the Pentagon, and repeated his call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation.” [Source: Lieberman press release, 8/31/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN FOUGHT TO PROTECT RUMSFELD AND KEEP HIM HEADING THE PENTAGON: In the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, Lieberman published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal subtitled “Why Rumsfeld Must Stay.” He wrote: “It is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war…Secretary Rumsfeld’s removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq.” Similarly, on 4/25/06, the New Haven Register reported that he specifically refused to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation. He said “Whether Don Rumsfeld should continue to serve … is up to him and the president at whose pleasure he serves.” [Source: Wall Street Journal, 5/14/04; New Haven Register, 4/25/06]