Re: "While I am very unhappy with Lieberman actively supporting McCain, one thing you have to say about him is that really does appear to be taking a pricipled stand for what he believes is right. Even though I completely disagree with his take on the issues, I have to admit that he must believe in what he is doing or else he won't be throwing away his political career this way. Many people say he is merely an oppurtunist, but if that was the case, he would have quietly supported the Democrat's position on Iraq and bided his time until his party was in power again."

Actually I believe you have misread the situation.

When Joe Lieberman lost the Senatorial primary, he was political toast. He did not have the Democratic nomination, and the Republicans had already put their nomination forward.

What likely happened is that, in return for unflinching support for the White House line, the Republican Party hung their own candidate out to dry (shows which direction Republican Loyalty goes) and backed Joe Lieberman (support and $'s) for re-election.

Now the payment for dumping thier own candidate is due, and it is unquestioned support for every key vote and position (including torture) that comes from the Bush White House and support for the Republican nominee in 2008.

I guess that "converting" from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life was not part of the bargain (as it was for George H. W. Bush to be VP in 1980), but we may see that by the Fall as well.

Senator Lieberman did not throw away his political career, he saved it, for at least one more term.

It is not a matter of principles. Just fee for service.

It is a sod commentary on the degree to which our national dialogue has been "Foxified" so that Hillary Clinton doing the right thing is news.

Both Hillary and Clinton have always behaved as pretty loyal Democrats, while also looking after their own interests. Which is perfectly normal for everyone else, From Saint John McCain to Barak Obama.

But, since the Media feels perfectly free, aided by Dick Morris' daily "Hate Hillary" hour on FoxNews (masquerading as the Sean Hannity show) to assign the worst possible motives, and even make up stuff that would be instantly challenged were it applied to anyone else, everyone feels perfectly free to throw mud her way.

Since when did it become acceptable to Hate Hillary Clinton? John McCain chuckled at the "B" word applied to her, with nary a ripple. Would anyone have been so sanguine had that supporter used the "N" word about Barak Obama?

Or, for that matter, the media instantly leaps to Saint John McCain's defense any time the "O" word (for "Old") is used within 1000 meters of John McCain.

But, open season on Hillary Clinton appears to be "Acceptable Hate". Here or anywhere else. And people seem to justify it because "she deserves it" or "she brings it on herself".

(Almost) no one deserves the level of hatred that that is de rigeur for the Clintons. Any criticism of George W. Bush’s rank incompetence and politicization is greeted with “Bush Derangement Syndrome” calls, as though “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” is “OK”.

Why?

Re: "Another sleazy shot at Gen. Patreus.

Since being put in command of US troops in Iraq, things have gotten a lot better. The surge is working despite the hopes of those who prefer to see it fail, for their political gain."

General Petreus took the unprecedented stop of writing an op-ed piece for the New York Times, two weeks prior to the 2004 elections, declaring how much the situation in Iraq was improving.

That statement, as we all know, was flat out false. And having a military commander writing op-ed items that helped re-elect President Bush was also something that was new.

The good general, despite being sainted by FoxNews, has shown himself perfectly willing to say whatever the White House wants, to support the Bush Agenda. Those political actions make his motives a genuine item of question. Particularly in light of the fate of Generals who said things that George W. Bush and Karl Rove did not like to hear.

Second Item. It is a common lie from Conservatives that anyone who criticizes the incompetence and deceit of the Bush White House "Hates America" and "wants the enemy to win". Can you document a single Liberal commentator declaring, for the record, that he/she wants Americans to die in Iraq? Or wants the Iraqi Civil war to continue? I know that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh instruct you to believe this, but haw about citing that declaration from someone other than the Conservative Through leaders? If you cannot document this from someone who matters (as opposed to the usual obscure quotes that Conservatives love to apply to everyone they hate), then please stoop lying in your posts about my motivations for my belif that Geroge W. Bush's tolerance of his Administration's infighting and incompetence has cost thousands of lives, unnecessarily.

The level of violence in Iraq is ONLY at those of 2005. And Conservatives are High-fiving themselves about what a great job they did.

How about the "If we are in Iraq six months, that will be too long"? The fact that the chaos that existed in 2006 is "not as bad now in 2008" appears to be the Conservative of "success". And you accuse ME of changing definitions?

What about the predictions of a short occupation? Remember them? Or do changing definitions only apply to Democrats?

And her name is "Hillary". I understand making fun of people's names, like schoolyard children, is what passes for debate and discourse on Conservative sites. However you are not addressing a Rush Limbaugh convention. I always refer to "President Bush" or "George W. Bush" when I speak of his rank incompetence and deceit. But I never substitute third-grade taunts for opinions and/or facts.

The United States of American now officially endorses the torture of prisoners.