Same Old Joe Lieberman?

It would be very interesting if McCain offered the Vice Presidential spot to Joe Liebermann. That could complicate things, as well as make history. Liebermann would be the first person to be nominated for vice-president in different elections by the two major parties. McCain could solidify his appeal to cross-over voters by claiming the potential to build a bi-partisan consensus. Problem is, he and Liebermann would have little appeal to younger voters. I'm kinda hoping he will choose a Dan Quayle type (unless he runs against Hillary -- in which case I want McCain to be in the strongest position possible). Given concerns about McCain's age a Dan Quayle type of VP should sink his candidacy once and for all.

Thank you for debunking Kirchick's bullshit.

I second adamvaught.

More people need to stand up against some of Kirchick's less reasonable posts.

Honestly, Jon, why even bother?  Nobody who reads this blog buys a word of Kirchick's ridiculous post. It's not worth your time to give a sober, point-by-point takedown.

Really, every one of his posts here is a poorly argued neoconservative rant unworthy of National Review's The Corner.  Maybe you could arrange to have his posts transferred to "The Spine" where we can more easily ignore them?

Interesting perhaps, but McCain has already said that running with someone who supports abortion rights "would be difficult" in terms of his party's acceptance. There are enough in McCain's party who have difficulty accepting McCain himself. Why would he want to compound the issue?

I think maybe we should all just ignore Jamie's ramblings and hope that security and/or cleaning service just toss him out with the rest of the riffraff.

I second thought, Marty will never let that happen.

medan said:  "More people need to stand up against some of Kirchick's less reasonable posts"

Where you standing up while you typed this nonsense, medan?

Takes no courage to "stand up" while typing.

Set aside Jon's (plausible) hypothesis that some people who actually voted for Lieberman said they voted for Lamont, and, for the sake of argument, assume that Jamie's right that the survey over-sampled Lamont voters.  Let's correct the sample to totally favor Lieberman.  

Instead of the sample being 48% to 43% for Lieberman (with 9% other), let's sample mostly the same people that were originally sampled, but make some small changes.  Let's chop of 3% of Lamont voters sampled, sample 2% more Lieberman voters, and sample 1% more "other" voters to make it 50% to 40% (with 10% other), which is what it was for the election (If the sample size were 1000, this would mean taking 30 Lamont voters out of the sample, and adding 20 more Lieberman voters and 10 other voters.)  

Now let's say that all of Lieberman's added 2% doesn't change it's mind and still would vote for him (i.e. the 20 extra people in the sample all say that they would vote for Lieberman).  Let's even assume that all of the 1% new "other" would also now vote for Lieberman.  So in the new final tally, Lieberman gets 3% more, while Lamont get's 3% less.  

This still leaves the final tally at 48% for Lamont, 40% for Lieberman.  This is still a huge shift from a 50-40 Liebernan victory in 2006.

Jonathan Chait, does breaking wind in public make you feel better?

Gee what a lot of you know what. Lieberman ran, was elected, and if the voters don't like it now they can vote him out of office later on.

I’d bet if Lieberman were a Republican who had run as an independent, then endorsed a Democrat, you would be calling him ‘one brave dude.’

jon,

you are a scrappy hombre. I have always liked that in your work and now that you are taking on the resident juvenile clown, more power to you.

Joe Lieberman should switch parties or the voters of CT should recall him or do whatever it takes to make him run again as his true self, a Republican. Truth in advertising shall set you free.

Ability (that is, "very basic" ability) to understand and interpret polls is one of the most important prerequisites for receiving paychecks as a political writer. In that sense Kirchick's paychecks are substantially unjustified (to put it very diplomatically).

I have been reading this magazine for ten years, and I think I deserve better than Kirchick. I skip pretty much all of his ramblings, but the mere fact that he still takes up his place alongside my favorites (like Chait) just irritates the hell out of me. Doesn't TNR care about its loyal readers?

Not so fast, Jon.  In your blog, you said, "He also ran as a loyal Democrat."  Not true.  Ned Lamont ran as a loyal Democrat.  Joe Lieberman ran as an Independent who would caucus with the Democrats.  That small amount of loyalty was bought at a steep price - he was heavily rewarded by being permitted to keep his chairmanships.  I think my neighbors in Connecticut had reason to expect more from Lieberman based on his history, but he promised nothing and he has certainly delivered on that.

Remembering that Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in 2006, I wonder if his current position is a bit of revenge.  I agree with the numerous comments that say he has no chance at the Republican VP slot.  So maybe his courtship of McCain and his attacks on Obama are merely a big, fat, upraised middle finger at the Democratic party for voting him off the ticket in 2006.

In the end, Lieberman's astonishing ingratitude to Obama shows us the kind of person he is.  When he was fighting for his political life, he was only too glad to accept Obama's help.  Now that Lieberman doesn't need him anymore, he feels free to spit on Obama.  Real nice guy.  If I could afford to live in Connecticut, I'd be starting the recall petition tomorrow.

jacksondyer writes:

I’d bet if Lieberman were a Republican who had run as an independent, then endorsed a Democrat, you would be calling him ‘one brave dude.’

jd makes an excellent point. Anyone who cheered seven years ago when James Jeffords broke with the GOP, or had kind words for John McCain (back in his "maverick" days, and before he went back to being a GWB apologist) is applying a double standard.

Yes, if Lieberman were a Republican who turned independent and endorsed a Democrat, you bet your ass we'd be cheering for him. Here's the thing, though---it's not a double standard, because there is only one standard: whether or not you're promoting good policies. Lieberman went from promoting good policies (Gore) to promoting bad policies (McCain). Call it what you want---"betrayal" probably isn't the correct term, "apostasy" probably is.

Man, Kirchik seems like he's got some bizarre daddy complex.

Anyone else notice this? I mean, it's fine if he's a conservative, it's fine if he's a neo-con, it's fine if he's staunchly pro-Israel, but the guy is like, 25 years old, and his views seem like they are exactly the same as some 60 year old conservative hawk's views, it's bizarre.

It seems to me that, for the most part, on both sides of the idealogical divide, people of different generations express their politics differently, young liberals don't tend to sound like old liberals, same for conservatives.

It's really striking to me how Kirchik's views just don't sound like they reflect a dude who was born in like 1982. Is he just trying to please someone?

"Anyone who cheered seven years ago when James Jeffords broke with the GOP, or had kind words for John McCain (back in his "maverick" days, and before he went back to being a GWB apologist) is applying a double standard."

Of course, but such double standards are in the nature of competition between groups.  Kim Philby was given a hero's burial in Moscow.  So who was he?  A hero of the Revolution or a dirtbag traitor, lower than pond scum?  Of course it depends on who you ask.

I can't imagine anything more stupid and pointless than a poll about an election that happened two years ago--unless it's writing multiple blog posts about it.

There is no legitimate comparison to be made between Jeffords and Lieberman.  Lieberman deceived the CT voters in order to get re-elected.  He was rejected by the Democratic party, but, knowing that he had no chance of being elected if he had openly admitted his new-found Republicanism, he dissembled.  That's what the law calls "fraud in the inducement."  In marriage, it is a basis for an annulment.

It must also be noted, for the nth time, that it is not Lieberman's support for the war that is so repellent.  It is that he accused, and as far as I know continues to accuse, others as being disloyal to the country for opposing the war.  That is an utter disgrace, not least because of the abundant evidence that the war was undertaken based on false representations by the Bush administration.  I suppose that that fraud in the inducement is what makes the whole thing right up Holier Than Thou Joe's alley.  He is a repellent, self-righteous prick.  I'm ashamed that he is a Jew.

It must also be noted, for the nth time, that it is not Lieberman's support for the war that is so repellent.  It is that he accused, and as far as I know continues to accuse, others as being disloyal to the country for opposing the war.  That is an utter disgrace, not least because of the abundant evidence that the war was undertaken based on false representations by the Bush administration.  I suppose that that fraud in the inducement is what makes the whole thing right up Holier Than Thou Joe's alley.  He is a repellent, self-righteous prick.  I'm ashamed that he is a Jew.

As a Leiberman supporter, I obviously disagree with roi here. Joe got re-elected by a substantial margin because he's been an excellent Senator for the people of Connecticut, who are hardly a bunch of neocons. It's been a reliably Democratic state in most presidential races over several decades.

And as long as we're pointing out things for the nth time, Lieberman didn't accuse anyone of disloyalty. He did caution Democrats that they attempt to undermine the credibility of the President in time of war at their peril, which sounds to me like wise council.

However popular the myth that "Bush lies sent us to war", it's still a myth. There are an awful lot of us who remember that the war started in 1991, and for the entire period between that date and the 2003 invasion, always a majority that at times approached 3:1, and averaged nearly 2:1 for the entire period answered "yes" to the unambiguous question "would you support the invasion of Iraq with US troops in an effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power". I would have preferred that the Administration stuck to the simple fact that Iraq had comprehensively violated the ceasefire and other subsequent Chapter VII Resolutions, but there's not a shred of evidence that they said anything that they didn't believe to be true about Iraq. There were plenty of good arguments against going to war against Iraq, but those making them were voted down fair and square in 1991, 1998, and in 2002.

With apologies, a reprise:

So let's raise a jeer to Momentous Joementum/

He may flee our party.  We cannot preventum./

The Dem pimary didn't breakum, but it seems to have bentum./

The war's in disfavor, but that doesn't dentum./

For his ass-kissing ways we greatly resentum./

If we win big in 08, away we can sendum./

A one term Repub, that Momentous Joementum.

Good Jack R,

that was very very good. Calvin Trillin better watch out...

Also, good to see your name on the boards again...

Jon-

I've made these points elsewhere, but since you unthinkingly repeat some falsehoods about Lieberman, I'll repeat them here.  (I only have brief comment about your points about polling.)

First of all, it's not really accurate to say that Lieberman ran as a "loyal Democrat" after he was defeated in the primary.  Once he was running against a candidate from the Democratic party, I think he recognized that it was not easy to make such a claim.  All people cared about then was that Lieberman would not hamper the Democrats' efforts to take back the Senate.  He promised he would assist in that effort by caucusing with the Democrats.  That was the loyalty and devotion sought, and promised, and it has been delivered.

Furthermore, I simply can't imagine that Lieberman got any significant support among those who placed a premium on loyalty to the Democratic party.  To the extent that the polling suggests "buyer's remorse" among CT voters, it likely has nothing to do with any campaigning for McCain or his recent statements.  After all, using your standards, the Research 2000 poll numbers for 2008 are "extremely close" to the same poll numbers for 2007.

As for the two statements that Lieberman that you cite as offensive, you're obviously taking statements that were made as jokes and taking them out of context.  First, saying "I hesitate to say Obama is a Marxist" in response to a question stating that is clearly not the same as "speculating" that he is.  Further, I urge you to listen to the audio of Lieberman's comments in response to the absurd "Marxist" question.  He audibly and unmistakably laughs at the suggestion that Obama is a Marxist.  Second, the Limbaugh statement that you quote is made in the context of a joke he was making about how things are different for him now that he is an Independent instead of a Democrat.  You may want to look at the whole transcript, if you have the time for accuracy.

Can we Democrats disagree with a fellow without demanding that he be sent to the gulag?  I'm not sure if Kirchick is a Democrat, but his views are not largely out of step with my own (and I'm 31 and a registered Democrat who is active in politics).  We should, as Democrats, note that our party votes Republican twice as often as Republicans vote Democrat.  Considering that, I think there is little to be gained by snarking that someone should be exiled from these forums or from discussion in our left-leaning magazine because their views reflect those of a minority of Democrats.  Calls for exile of Kirchick are the same reason 10-15% of Democrats vote for the Republican candidate.  It's hard to be comfortable in a party that celebrates diversity of skin color but not diversity of thought.  

I'm a Democratic hawk.  I'm not alone.  There are millions of people like me - like Joe Lieberman, who have decent Democratic voting records on everything, but cross party lines on national security.  In my opinion, Lieberman has to do that because the Democrats are on the wrong side of the issue.  It's why I feel unwelcome in my party, and presumably why millions of other Democrats crossed parties when they voted in 2004.  And look at the poll numbers - polls of Obama and Clinton votes show that the crossover vote this election will be the same as it was in 2004.  

I guess we could shrug and keep making fun of Lieberman, Kirchick, and me.  I mean, what are we gonna do?  Vote Republican?

Oh.

Hooray for Jon Chait.

"He [Lieberman] did caution Democrats that they attempt to undermine the credibility of the President in time of war at their peril, which sounds to me like wise council."

This is advice that is often given by Republicans to Democrats and ALWAYS ignored by Republicans when a Democrat is in the White House, going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson.  It is, to my mind, but a tool that the right uses to suppress criticism..  Indeed, we have the contra examples of Nixon interfering with LBJ's diplomacy prior to the 1968 election (illegally communicating with the North Vietnamese) to ensure no diplomatic movement that might cost him the election and Reagan similarly interfering with Carter's diplomacy with Iran for the same reason.

There is no reason to take Lieberman, the crypto-Republican, seriously on this score.  He simply wants to bully and silence those who think that his position on the war is profoundly wrong.  Count me among them,  Nominating him for vice president was one of the worst mistakes ever made by the Democratic party.  

Lieberman lied to the voters of CT to get himself elected, and Lamont turned out to be kind of an empty suit.

Today, CT voters feel betrayed, and at this point, a faceless Dem alderman would beat Lieberman like a rented fucking mule in a re-election and those of you who don't see that are just deluding yourselves.

For those non-Plank obsessives: I wrote an item in defense of Joe Lieberman yesterday. Jon Chait wrote

For those non-Plank obsessives: I wrote an item in defense of Joe Lieberman yesterday. Jon Chait wrote

phargle,

A loyal Democrat can hold divergent views of course and should not be shunned. Someone who campaigns for the GOP and implies that probable Democratic nominee is a Marxist is not a loyal Democrat, and has fallen beyond the boundaries of acceptably hetereogenous party discourse.

And add to the fact that Lieberman is a sanctimonious little germ and this then makes the door the most appropriate - and most civil - response that Democrats can offer...

When Lieberman endorsed McCain he should have done the honorable thing and switched parties by becoming a Republican, or at least resigning from his committees and stop aligning himself with Democrats. If he had joined the Republican party or aligned himself with them, he probably could have kept his committee seats since the Senate would then be 50-50, and if he was non-aligned the Dems. would have had the lead, but he would have shown his honor. I believe the non-alignment would have been most honorable, but his becoming a Republican at least admits where he stands. As it is, the current state is basically disgraceful. Shame on Reid too for not enforcing party discipline.

The Dems should strip him of his committee seats now, force Lieberman to make a public stand. The worst that will happen is a 50-50 Senate. It will only be for 8 months, and nothing much will happen over that time anyway.

Okay - but what about Kirchick?  Every post he makes here is met with demands for him to be thrown to the wolves.  The hyperbole is so far gone that people say his comments are too conservative even for The Corner, which makes me think that these people do not read The Corner.

And what about me?  I've been a McCain fan since 2000 (when I voted for Gore), and I intend to support his campaign as a volunteer.  Should I also be exiled from the party tent?

To put it another way, if the tent only exiles non-Democratic senators (Joe), this whole thread and my concern are basically meaningless.  I'm therefore using Lieberman merely as a touchstone, and weaving myself and Kirchick into the wider narrative of Democrats exiling the hawks.  I don't think TNR's readership is served well by enforcing an echo chamber, and I don't think the Democratic party is served well by driving out the hawks.  I'm only peripherally talking about Joe and am instead focusing on Democrats and TNR readers like me, for whom Kirchick's comments are not beyond the pale.  For folks like me, calls for censoring and exiling Kirchick hit a little too close to home.  Do you see where I'm coming from?

I'm with phargle. Allowing the left wing of the party to dominate the discussion on national security is the electoral equivalent of a suicide pact. And if you check the record, Lieberman is significantly "left" on a number of issues, on average dead in the middle of the Democrat mainstream. El Jaunty should read the post of bigm above. You can dislike Joe without having to make things up.

The hostility to Joe is 99% to do with Iraq and nothing else, and it seems unfair to single him out as he is hardly the only Democrat who felt it was long past time to end the career of Saddam Hussein in 2003, including an awful lot of Connecticut voters. He's just been honest about it when it would have been far more politically expedient to tap-dance around the issue like Clinton and Obama. My guess is that neither of them, once in the White House, would be likely do anything in Iraq that wouldn't be approved by Joe Lieberman.

"The hostility to Joe is 99% to do with Iraq and nothing else"

Bullshit. Lieberman has constantly used Rovean traitor language to describe his fellow Dems.

Today, he is flying around the world with the Republican nominee for President, a guy with the opposite position on abortion, taxes, healthcare, energy.... I guess HRC just wasn't hawkish enough for him.

Lots of Dems supported the war and supported it for a long time and haven't come under the same level of criticism. Lieberman makes a fetish out of bashing Dems, THAT'S the source of the hostility.

Thank you mmathog.  

With all due respect, 'hog, Lieberman doesn't "bash" Democrats. He tries to give them sound advice. When  he said that attempting to undermine the credibility of the President in wartime was risky for the party and the country, he was right. It's one thing to say you think the President is wrong. It's quite another to maintain, without a shred of evidence, that he's lying.

The "99%" was kind of a throw-away line that I'll be happy to retract--I know a lot of people have other gripes against Lieberman. But I think a lot of them are misguided or the result of twisting his words like this example, or his alleged "calling Obama a Marxist" when he actually laughed at the idea. Lieberman is supporting McCain because he honestly thinks he'd be the best president, and they are both guys who put country ahead of party. I like that, and so do lots of other voters.

"When  he said that attempting to undermine the credibility of the President in wartime was risky for the party and the country, he was right."

No, he wasn't 'right,' that wasn't 'sound advice' that's patented classic Karl Rove spin. Lieberman's free to support the war uncriticized w/o resorting to that bullshit, lots of other dems did, so fuck him. As Digby put it at the time "Trying to quell dissent is not only undemocratic, it is unAmerican."

Here's Lieberman's quote:

"It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the President’s credibility at our nation’s peril."

Lieberman's from a deep blue state and acts this way, why the fuck should Dems put up with him?

I should think we fail to undermine Bush's credibility at our nation's peril.  The more credibility (not that there is a shred left at any point due to no particular effort by Democrats), the greater the ability for Bush's continued depravity.  

Mr. Powell, you may believe that Holy Joe's criticism of Democrats for criticizing Bush are justified, but it is simply contra the facts to assert that the hostility toward Lieberman is due to his support for the war.  There are a number of Democrats who have been consistent supporters of the war and none of them is regarded in the same light as Lieberman.  Whatever you think of Lieberman's attacks on the party, they are, in fact, the basis for the hostility toward him.

It is worth repeating that the advice that "we undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril" is never followed by Republicans during wartime when there is a Democrat in the White House.  They never stopped attacking Roosevelt throughout WWII which was, by any standard, a national emergency of the highest order.

Bob, sorry but I disagree, Lieberman is not a Democrat any longer, he has no rights or expectations to enjoy the fruits of the Democratic parties majority in the Senate, he is there at the pleasure of the Democrats. They are under no obligation to give him committee chairmanships. I also understand if they give him the boot then Lieberman might become a Republican, in which case the Republicans will have a nominal majority.

Lieberman is an independent, he can give advice to whomever he wants, that doesn't mean we have to follow it (or hell, even listen to it).

The only reason I think he should get the boot is because he is campaigning for McCain. I have no problem with him doing it, his obligation is only to the voters in Connecticut, but that doesn't mean he should eat at the Democrats table for free anymore.

Some may continue to believe that Bush did not lie us into the Iraq war.  I happen to think he did nothing but.  However, the claim that there is "not a shred of evidence" for that position is contradicted by a mountain of evidence.  I believe one recent study found literally hundreds if not thousands of statements made by Bush in the run-up to the war that he had to have known were false when he made them, or allowed them to be made in his name -- unless, that is, you believe the stupid defense, that the man is too stupid to be able to lie because he cannot tell the difference between truth and falsity.

Here's just a small piece of the evidence.  You may not be convinced by it, but it is certainly evidence by any definition of the word.

WMDs

Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies.  (Second Debate)

According to the CIA’s Duelfer’s Report Iraq:

HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO GIVE OUT.

“had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions” ended.

Iraq failed “to acquire long range delivery systems “to replace inventory exhausted in the Iran/Iraq war.”

The survey group “uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles” and “documentation suggests that Iraq did not retain such missiles after 1991.”

Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.

“Initial, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety. . . [but] [a]ggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender compenents of the program.”

“Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991.  There are no credible indications that Bagdad resumed production of chemical munitions therafter.”

“With the economy at rock bottom in late 1995 . . . Baghdad [destroyed undeclared stocks of biological weapons] and abandoned its existing BW [biological warfare] program in the belief it constituted a potential embarrassment” which would undercut any ability to lift sanctions.

In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.”

Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD.

“[T]he Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.  Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.”

No WMDs have been after ten months.  David Kay reported that there is no evidence that Iraq had an active nuclear or biological weapons program and Iraq did not have an “ongoing centrally controlled chemical weapons program.”   (88)

“And when David Kay goes in and says we haven’t found stockpiles yet, and there’s theories as to where the weapons went.  They could have been destroyed during the war. . . They could be hidden.  They could have been transported to another country, and we’ll find out.

Kay didn’t attribute the absences of stockpiles to their destruction or transportation to another country, Kay found that they were never produced and hadn’t been produced since 1991. (83)

On May 29, 2003, during a visit to Poland, President Bush declared that the U.S. had “found the weapons of mass destruction.  We found biological laboratories. . . . They’re illegal.  They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two.”

On June 1, 2003, Bush proclaimed that “we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited.”

A review by US and UK experts has found this claim to be false.  The mobile trailers at issue were facilities to fill weather balloons.  (21)

The Bush administration religiously chanted the contention that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction as its basis for a war.  

For example, in his address to the nation Bush said the intelligence “leaves no doubt that . .  . Iraq . . . continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”  

Vice President Cheney also was part of the chorus and declared that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

Poland’s President, a strong U.S. ally with 2,400 troops in Iraq, stated that Poland “was misled with the information on weapons of mass destruction.”

Former Treasury Secretary O’Neil, who was a member of the National Security Council, indicated that “[i]n the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction.” (71)

After ten-months of searching for WMDs, investigators have found no support for the claim that Iraq possessed nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.  In January, the Bush administration quietly pulled its 400 man weapons inspection team out of Iraq “because its works was essentially done”.  (64)  

David Kay, the chief weapons inspector, concluded “I don’t think they existed.”  “What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the [1991] Gulf War and I don’t think there was a large-scale production program in the Nineties.”(76)

This is consistent with David Kay’s interim report that concluded that Iraq’ capacity to produce new chemical munitions “was reduced - - if not entirely destroyed” during the 1990 Gulf War, 1998 bombings and 13 years of sanctions and inspections. (52)  

Even Donald Rumsfeld Defense Secretary Rumsfeld confirmed “I don’t think we’ll discover anything.”(17)

In January 2004, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report on WMDS in Iraq concluded that the evidence prior to the war indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program had been dismantled and its chemical weapons had lost most of their lethality.   In addition, the report concluded that the administration “systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs”.  (70)

This is consistent with other pre-war reports.  For example, in September 2002, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency concluded “there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has – or will – establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.” (17)

A Canadian military analyst also disputes that chemical weapons are WMDs, explaining that “biological and chemical weapons are akin to weapons of mass terror.  They are military ineffective.”  (24)  The Carnegie report shared this view, explaining that the “conflation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose, distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war.”  (70)

University of Michigan disarmament expert noted that “[t]his could be the first war in history that was justified largely by an illusion.”

Thanks for your diligence, roi.

I heard directly from Duelfer's lips that Iraq's primary goal was getting rid of the sanctions, which given the Total/Fina/Elf deal signed in 2002 among other strong indications was a fait acompli with a US climbdown in 2003, and that once they did they were "less than six months away" from deployable long-range chemical tipped rockets which would have made Iraq virtually immune from invasion at anything approaching an acceptable level of casualties. Hans Blix, who was only there because we parked an army on Saddam's doorstep, found significant missile capacity, and according to Duelfer, that was "the hard part". The chemical weapons program was in the can.

It's important to note that the data you cite came to light after, and only because of, the invasion. Bush's statements are taken completely out of context not only in temporal terms, but in terms of all the other things he was being told by our intelligence community, almost all of which tended to support if not completely verify all those statements.

Lieberman never said Democrats shouldn't criticize Bush. He's on record doing so himself. I think you are mistaken about this rather than lying, but it's still a false statement.

blackie: Lieberman is an asset for the Democrats if they are smart enough to use him.

Re: "war justified by illusion". In the first place, I can think of several examples off hand.

Second, Iraq's behavior in terms of launching wars of aggression that killed millions, tens of thousands of them with wmd's, including the invasion, rape, and annexation of Kuwait; and it's defiance of a world-record number of Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions,  was no illusion. Neither was the strategic nature of it's geopolitical location.

"It's important to note that the data you cite came to light after, and only because of, the invasion."

WHOOPSIE DAISY!!!

Oh well, turns out nothing to see here, sorry about igniting unrest that has killed 1/4 million people and displaced a few million more and inspired all the fun local debt/inflation. Besides, what's YOUR problem? Saddam was an asshole so two wrongs make a right and my army is in a 'geopolitically important place' and I have to go fill up my SUV, so fuck you hippie!

Bob, what about the other loyal Democratic Senators. In 9 months the Dems. will increase their margin in the Senate, better to give the chairmanships to loyal Democrats and not some independent who may or may not support the Democrats. If Joe still wants to caucus with the Dems, by all means let him, but also let him get to the back of the line. His support of McCain means he stepped over the line and for that he should be punished.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with him doing it. It is that I can't imagine the Republicans ever putting up with Joe did. Party discipline is a good thing, and is what make Republicans so damn successful, it is about time for the Dems to do the same.

Robert,

Saying that Lieberman is not on record saying Democrats shouldn't criticize Bush is parsing reality a bit too fine. He is on record saying that Democrats criticism of Bush put the nation's security at risk.  That is far more objectionable.

You have repeated many times that Iraq is at a geographically important strategic location.  Even assuming that to be true (it is not particularly true), that in no sense leads to the conclusion that invading it made the slightest bit of strategic sense.  Merely reciting that something is strategically important does not lead to absolutely any strategy you like.  There has to be some sense to it.  The invasion of Iraq was utterly senseless from a strategic point of view -- no WMDs to find, no terrorist network to uproot, and nothing that enhances our own security.  Hence, our own security, not to mention our armed forces, have been grievously compromised by this blunder.  Had the war been represented, with all its costs, as but a humanitarian effort to save Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, there is not a chance in hell that any Republican, let alone the country, would have given their assent.  

roi--

What Lieberman said exactly was, "Democrats who attempt to undermine the credibility of the President in time of war do so at their, and the county's, peril."  It's a true statement.  Banging on endlessly about how "Bush lies sent us to war" completely ignores the long and sordid record of Ba'athist Iraq. It was Iraqi behavior that sent us to war in 1991; kept us involved in combat operations there for twelve years enforcing the embargo (itself an act of war that killed perhaps a million innocent Iraqis); and directly prompted the 2003 invasion. To maintain otherwise denies obvious historical reality, and to the extent that being in Iraq "aids terrorist recruiting", this is a principal means.

That said, there's no denying the validity of your second paragraph. I think we smacked the Tar Baby in 1991, if for perfectly legitimate reasons, and attempted to avoid getting entangled in Iraqi politics at the time for reasons whose legitimacy have become painfully obvious since 2003. It's my opinion that we were fated to shoulder this responsibility for a number of reasons, and would have been far better off to have done so in 1991 when we had half a million pairs of boots on the ground, the international wind at our back, and hadn't spent over a decade first abandoning Iraqis to massacre after calling on them to rise up, then starving them and destroying their infrastructure with sanctions.

In international affairs, it is sometimes, often in fact, necessary to tolerate ambiguity, half-measures, and messy situations of many kinds that do not have any clear resolution or conform to any sort of doctrine for no better reason than that they are simply the least of many evils.  In 1991, I was incredulous that the coalition forces did not proceed to Baghdad, but they didn't.  There were reasons then that have at least some force even with hindsight.  However, whatever the missed opportunities in 1991, they did not make invasion in 2003, under rather different circumstances, more efficacious.  The world had turned too many times.  We have had our spats -- that I regret -- and I have come to have high regard for your opinions, but I continue not to understand why prudence and pragmatism have such a low value in your calculus of what should and should not be done in international affairs.  

phargle...

sorry, been away for a few days. I think you do yourself a real injustice by equating yourself with Kirchick. You are a conservative Democrat phargle that I agree. You are also, in my opinion, honest, reflective, civil, and mature. These are all qualities noticeably absent in Kirchick. As I mentioned on another post, more than his politics, Kirchick's critics - and I am a founding member of that hardy band - are put off by his dishonesty (especially in his continued misrepresentation of the words of other journalists) and his sloppy and facile journalist.

Phargle, you are worth ten Kirchicks. Don't sell yourself short.