Last April in an interview with the website Truthdig, Connecticut Senate candidate Ned Lamont said that the difference between him and Joe Lieberman on Iran is that if elected, he would favor ”very aggressive diplomacy,” but “Lieberman is the one who keeps talking about keeping the military option on the table.” (New Republic editor Marty Peretz later quoted this line in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.)
Tonight, faced with the difficult task of winning moderates and independents away from Joe Lieberman, Lamont appeared to change his position in an interview with Hardball’s Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Would you ever, under any circumstances, as a U.S. Senator, should you get elected, support a military attack on Iran?
LAMONT: Look, always the military option is on the table.
To his credit, Matthews challenged Lamont on his response. While it’s unlikely that Matthews read the Truthdig interview, he probably read Peretz’s op-ed and remembered Lamont’s initial position on Iran — thus his incredulity at Lamont’s current posture. Lamont quickly tried to change the subject and put the focus back on negotiations. In his column today, Rich Lowry addressed Lamont’s approach in the context of recent events in North Korea.