First, Spencer Ackerman of (the normally Lieberman-supporting) The New Republic, writing in the American Prospect, takes Senator Lieberman's reputation as a foreign policy expert to task:
Leave aside Lieberman's unseemly eagerness to paint his opponent as a jihadist cat's-paw. There's a bigger problem with his pitch: Lieberman isn't strong on defense at all.
But belligerence isn't the same thing as wisdom -- and hawkishness does not always lead to a safer America. Lieberman has, of course, been the most vigorous Democratic defender of the Iraq quagmire, which has laid waste to U.S. defense capabilities in a way that not even Vietnam was able to. Many have asked why Lieberman has been the lone Democratic hawk to face a vigorous liberal primary challenge, and the answer is surely complex. But part of it may be that while other Democratic hawks emphasize the risks of withdrawal, Lieberman is unique among Democrats in defending the wisdom of the invasion itself, a position so inexplicable as to be nearly insane. Indeed, Lieberman's judgment on defense questions is like that of a stopped clock: the hawkish position, applied consistently, has to be right sooner or later. What Lieberman is asking Connecticut -- and the Democratic Party, and the country -- to accept is that the only secure America is a bellicose America. And that position is a guarantee of future Iraqs.
Also, the Courant has an editorial from Frank Harris, III, the chairman of the Journalism Department at Southern Connecticut State University, who wonders why Senator Lieberman is comfortable condemning the lies of Presidents about sex but not about war:
Eight years ago, the senator righteously called out Clinton for his moral indiscretion and his lies regarding Monica Lewinsky - the sex lies; yet since the Iraq war, the senator has remained silent regarding the lies of George W. -the war lies.
For those who may have forgotten, amid the troops coming home in body bags and bandages, not to mention the thousands of civilian casualties and the further destabilization of the Middle East - George W. and his administration have, in effect, looked into the eyes of the American people and lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.
Remember the weapons of mass destruction and the assertion that Iraq was complicit in the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001, and that there was indisputable proof?
If Lieberman were consistent in applying moral outrage to immoral, disgraceful behavior that damages the country - as he did with Bill about Monica - he would find gaping holes in the Bush administration's war in Iraq.