With Friends Like These...

Oh, look, it's Joe Lieberman:

Lieberman an unseen force in Democrats' clash
Connecticut maverick backs Clinton, criticizes Edwards on Iran policy

Ah, mavericks. Lieberman's too much of a stopped clock (like Bill Kristol, he's all-war, all-the-time) to say that you should always do the reverse of what he recommends, but suffice it to say that if you're the person in a controversy with the Lieberman-approved Iran policy, you're not the person with the best Iran policy. Indeed, it's worth recalling that Lieberman and resolution cosponsor Jon Kyl have been trying to gin up conflict with Iran for a long time. Here's some February 2006 reporting from yours truly:

At the front of the room was an American flag, a podium, a projection screen, and R. James Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence who went more-than-a-little around the bend sometime after leaving the Clinton administration. He was one of the very first prominent commentators to finger Saddam Hussein as the likely culprit for the 9-11 attacks, doing so just after the strikes when no empirical evidence could possibly support the contention, and maintaining his view steadfastly even as evidence continued to be non-existent.

Needless to say, such loyalty to his own imagination has done nothing to diminish his standing in the neoconservative world or his access to mass audiences on cable television. On that January day at the Capitol, he was speaking on behalf of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), a think tank he founded in the summer of 2004 with various neocon B-listers under the nominal auspices of Senators Jon Kyl and Joe Lieberman. The occasion was the release of a six-page policy paper on Iran, which to no one's surprise reached the conclusion that “the United States' policy objective must be regime change in Iran.”

Which isn't to say that Hillary Clinton is part of a plot to start a war with Iran. It does, however, seem worth noting that opposing a "rush to war" (which is what she said) isn't at all the same as opposing going to war.

Comments

Lieberman backs Clinton, criticizes Edwards on Iran policy

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

deep breath.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Posted by Petey | October 31, 2007 5:06 PM

It does, however, seem worth noting that opposing a "rush to war" (which is what she said) isn't at all the same as opposing going to war.

I kept thinking last night, is this 2002 all over again? Why does she keep emphasizing that phrase?

Posted by Clark | October 31, 2007 5:07 PM

Does a rush mean going to war without sufficient thought of the merit of the action; or does it mean going within a specific period of time? When does going to war become a rush to war? Can anyone give me an example of when this country rushed to war? Isn't that a question that Hillarity Clinton should be asked?

Is there anyone out there who can save this country from Clinton/Guiliani/Romney? This country is screwed and you know it when the next Attorney General doesn't know whether water boarding is torture. You'd think an old fart like Mukasey who has already been a judge and is probably comfortable would not want a job so badly that he would compromise his moral standing in quest of it.

Posted by Llyonnoc | October 31, 2007 5:31 PM

"You'd think an old fart like Mukasey who has already been a judge and is probably comfortable would not want a job so badly that he would compromise his moral standing in quest of it."

He's probably convinced himself that he's going to be part of something larger than his own moral standing. That's an evolution common to people who have or stand to have great power.

Posted by Guy in Jersey | October 31, 2007 6:30 PM

"It does, however, seem worth noting that opposing a "rush to war" (which is what she said) isn't at all the same as opposing going to war."

Still not sure where YOU stand on that question, Matt. Reading between the lines, it would SEEM that you don't support a war with Iran.

But you STILL haven't answered the question directly.

Which makes you "Hillary Lite" when it comes to evasion.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 31, 2007 7:22 PM

"It does, however, seem worth noting that opposing a "rush to war" (which is what she said) isn't at all the same as opposing going to war."

Still not sure where YOU stand on that question, Matt. Reading between the lines, it would SEEM that you don't support a war with Iran.

But you STILL haven't answered the question directly.

Which makes you "Hillary Lite" when it comes to evasion.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 31, 2007 7:23 PM

Have no idea how that double post happened, except the server is so slow the IT people at "The Atlantic" need to learn something about load balancing and server capacity. I know, it's a magazine and thus has no money. Switch to open source and sue me.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 1, 2007 12:14 AM

>>Which isn't to say that Hillary Clinton is part of a plot to start a war with Iran.

No, no. Just their willing, triangulating patsy.

Also, what does "with friends like these" really mean in this case? Does anyone really believe that the senator from Israel is a "friend" of the Democrats? He's an ex-liberal warmonger. Hey, just like Norman Podhoretz! Good ole Poddy.

Posted by jim | November 1, 2007 1:05 AM