CAN'T WE FIND BETTER LEADERSHIP AT A TIME OF CRISIS THAN THE LIKES OF A DISHONEST HACK LIKE JOE LIEBERMAN? AND, NO, RON PAUL DOES NOT QUALIFY

Lieberman sees light at the end of the tunnel. Although he's a few years older than I am, Lieberman well remembers the stream of lies coming out of the Johnson and Nixon Administrations in regard to the disastrous war in Vietnam. They were always seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. He knew they were lying then and... well one has to wonder if he knows "they're" lying now. The "they're" being himself as his coterie of war-promoting confederates. Yesterday he made a rare trip to Connecticut and spoke to a "mostly white-haired crowd" about fighting illegal immigrants and Islamic terrorists. He told them, referring disingenuously to the war upon which his reputation has crashed and burned, "I'm proud to say that the tide has turned in Iraq and we're winning that war."

In the 60s and 70s, the Pentagon routinely lied their asses off to cover for the White House propaganda. Today the Pentagon released some figures that appear to undercut the Bush-Cheney-Lieberman-McCain Big Lie About Iraq: this has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq. So I guess that isn't how Lieberman is measuring. Um... it's also the costliest in terms of cash and in terms of long-term commitment to caring for catastrophically wounded and disabled veterans.

Another old timer, whose senses have been badly damaged by the passing of time, is House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI). Judging from his psychotic outbursts, which have become more and more frequent, he has grown increasingly senile in the last couple of years. According to today's Hill he said that "if violence is decreasing in Iraq, it may be because insurgents 'are running out of people to kill... There are fewer targets of opportunity.'" The man means well but shouldn't a nonpartisan doctor determine when these guys are too over the hill to function effectively in these responsible jobs. After all, he does oversee like trillions of dollars in spending.

And speaking of today's Hill in an indirectly related matter, they're reporting that the recruiting surge anticipated by the National Republican Congressional Committee is a complete bust. Several weeks ago the ring-nuts promised they would have top flight challengers for five specific top-targeted districts within "a few weeks, but so far only one of those races has a nationally recruited challenger officially in the race," last year's pathetic loser Mike Sodrel who will run for the 4th time against Bush Dog Baron Hill (D-IN), who basically votes like a Republican anyway. They have no viable challengers against Bush Dog John Barrow (D-GA), the single worst Democratic in Congress, at least in terms of loyalty, nor against very popular longshots Patrick Murphy (D-PA), David Loebsack (D-IA) or Michael Arcuri (D-NY). The Republicans have found someone to run against Republican-leaning Chris Carney in Pennsylvania and that's probably the only seat they will win from a Democrat alleged Democrat in 2008.

According to a DCCC spokesperson, "National Republicans are shooting blanks all over the place and are finding themselves with a dearth of quality candidates. In the future, before brazenly predicting a recruitment surge, they might want to first line up more than just a two-time loser who was fired by voters for being part of the problem.” Or maybe the surge in Iraq is hurting the surge in recruitment. You never know. (Hey the only Republican campaign making any positive headway is the anti-war/anti-Semite crazy train driven, more or less, by Texas loonitarian Ron Paul.

Meanwhile, isn't it a damn shame that Lieberman, Cheney, McCain, Miss Lindsey and a gaggle of Republican GOP congressional cheerleaders weren't on this truck, instead of U.S. military men, as it turned the corner... if not the tide:




UPDATE: OVER SHAKES THIS MORNING...

Jane mentioned that Lieberman has a vested interest in painting Iraq as a great big wopping success... sooner that's under out belts, sooner we can attack Iran, the ultimate objective of his heinous Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

Lieberman has never counted the costs to the United States of pursuing Israeli objectives in the Middle East. He continues to be a vocal supporter of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, frequently mentioning Saddam's alleged links to terrorists and invoking a variation of the White House line that if the U.S. does not fight terrorists in Iraq it will be necessary to fight them in New Haven. In 1998 he co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change in Baghdad official U.S. policy. His regular forays to Baghdad have convinced him that Iraq has been transformed from "primitive, killing tyranny" into "modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood." He saw clear evidence by 2005 of the democratization of Iraq: "Progress is visible … there are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones." More recently, he enthusiastically supported last summer's Israeli invasion of Lebanon and has tried to make Syria the newest member of the axis of evil, claiming without any evidence that it is Syria "through which up to 80 percent of the Iraq-bound extremists transit. Indeed, even terrorists from countries that directly border Iraq travel by land via Syria to Iraq, instead of directly from their home countries, because of the permissive environment for terrorism that the Syrian government has fostered."

Lieberman has also been front and center in taking on the thorny problem of Iran, promoting a military response as the most effective option. In an April 2006 interview in the Jerusalem Post, he freely discussed using military force to disarm Iran, noting that the U.S. had learned a lesson from both Osama bin Laden and Hitler that "sometimes when people say really extreme things … they may actually mean it." In December 2006, Lieberman followed up by explaining that he opposed direct talks with Iran because it would be like going to "your local fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire. These people are flaming the fire. They are extremists." On Dec. 29, 2006, Lieberman wrote a Washington Post op-ed in which he explained the situation in the Middle East in simple terms: "On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States."

On June 10, 2007, Lieberman told Face the Nation, "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me that would include a strike into … over the border into Iran … where they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers." He later stated that "By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," and, for good measure, he added that if Iran is not willing to live "according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them." On the following day, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol said "It sure does," after being asked if the Lieberman statement would make it easier for the White House to consider an attack against Iran.

On July 6, 2007, Lieberman wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he claimed, "The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East. American now has a solemn responsibility to utilize the instruments of our national power to convince Tehran to change its behavior," employing "credible force" because Iran is bringing "about the death of American service members in Iraq." He described, without providing any evidence, how the "Iranian government has been using the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah to train and organize Iraqi extremists, who are responsible in turn for the murder of American service members." He called Iran's role as "hostile and violent" and complained that Tehran's "fanatical government" demonstrates "expansionistic, extremist behavior." After again referring to Iran's "fanatical regime," he cited "attacks on American soldiers" as a reason why Iran "must be confronted head on."