It's hard to think of anyone outside the tiny handful of uppermost administration decision makers with more to answer for than Lieberman. In the next circle of this hell would be the bigshots of the Washington Press and its cable adjuncts who rush to put cameras in his face while ignoring and ridiculing the "Cassandras" who've been right all along.

Great post, Glenn

to the Presidential Anointment of 2000, it is that the Gentleman from the Nutmeg State is not the Vice President. Imagine the mess we would be in now if something had happened to Al.

I hope the people of Connecticut are happy now. To think, you (and we) were almost rid of him....but no. All he's been taught is that he can get elected no matter WHAT he does. And now, drunk with power, he seems intent on holding the Senate and our country hostage to his delusional view of the Middle East.

I knew Joey was a sack of _ _ _ _ when he took the dive in the Cheney debate in 2000. Went down like a bag of dirt ( thanks Elaine Bennis ) and has been going down ever since.

Glenn nails it again - this morning's Lieberman op-ed is a complete repudiation of Lieberman's November 29, 2005 op-ed in the WSJ. I'd like to add one more lie to the list Glenn has enumerated.

Lieberman unveiled a Ten Point Plan for Iraq during the CT Senate campaign last September. The second element of the ten point plan called for continuing the strategy (instituted more than a year before) of embedding U.S. troops in Iraqi military units as a means of both facilitating the training and effectiveness of the Iraqis and permitting a drawdown of U.S. troop levels in Iraq. The WSJ op-ed in November 2005 had also urged increased embedding and touted it as a means of reducing troop levels in Iraq. Point Six went a step further, however, and stated that increased embedding “should be done by redeploying existing troops, not adding new troops to the region.”

The Nov. 2005 op-ed, like Lieberman's Ten Point Plan, was quite clear in asserting that increased embedding of U.S. troops in Iraqi units would permit us to bring our troops home. But Lieberman didn't wait a week following the 2006 mid-term elections before he began repudiating that conviction. Here's the timeline:

Sep. 25, 2006: Lieberman unveils his “ten point plan” for Iraq during a speech at the East Hampton V.F.W. in CT. Point Six of his ten point plan called for the withdrawal of troops and provided that increased embedding of U.S. troops in Iraqi military units would be achieved "by redeploying existing troops, not adding new troops to the region."

Oct. 23, 2006: Lieberman refers to his “ten point plan” in the third and final debate in the CT Senate race and emphasizes his strategies for improving training Iraqi troops “so we can bring our troops home.”

Nov. 7, 2006: Election Day. As CT voters go to the polls Lieberman’s “ten point plan” remains the official Lieberman campaign statement of Iraq policy.

Nov. 15, 2006: A mere eight days after the election Lieberman urged Gen. Abizaid to seek authority to send more troops to Iraq in order to facilitate the embedding of U.S. troops in Iraqi military units, even though his own "ten point plan" stated that embedding "will allow more Americans to come home because embedded troops need less outside support." Remarkably, Lieberman urged this course upon Gen. Abizaid even after Abizaid had testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed increased embedding could be achieved “from within the existing force structure inside Iraq.”

Dec. 3, 2006: Lieberman appears on Face The Nation (CBS) and calls for more troops in Iraq, thereby definitively repudiating his pre-election opposition to troop increases (as stated in his “ten point plan”). He further contradicts his pre-election argument that increased embedding of U.S. troops in Iraqi military units would require fewer U.S. troops in Iraq, saying: “Incidentally, finally [Rumsfeld] makes a few suggestions such as embedding more Americans in Iraqi security forces which most people now think is a good idea and having more Americans on the border with Iran and Syria to stop the terrorists from coming in....Both of those require more personnel on the ground in Iraq.”

Dec. 29, 2006: Lieberman publishes an op-ed in the Washington Post entitled “Why We Need More Troops In Iraq.”

Jan. 8, 2007: Lieberman is quoted in the Stamford Advocate as saying "I didn't change my position, and I'm grateful I was able to win the election with broad 'tri-partisan' support. There should not be any shock about the position I'm taking now."

Lieberman is utterly shameless. By December 3, 2006 - less than a month after the elections - Lieberman argued that embedding required more troops in Iraq, after arguing for more than a year that it was the key to reducing our troop level in Iraq. Less than a month after the elections he completely reversed Point Six of his Ten Point Plan, which stated unequivocally that increased embedding should be achieved by "redeploying existing troops, not adding new troops to the region."

We keep tabs on all the LieberLies at LieberWatch.blogspot.com.

One more story about Lieberman saying it's possible he could defect to the Republican party. Shut up and go ahead and do it if you want to. Blackmail and attention craving is very unattractive, Joe.

By the way, when Lieberman (or any other American government official) visits Iraq how extensive is the security apparatus around their party. How much safety emphasis and overkill is employed to the areas that they visit.... Boy this sure looks safe to me. LOL.

Let's drop Lieberman, Kristol, and Gaffney via parachute somewhere out in no-mans land in Iraq or Afghanistan. See if they can make it back to the green zone.

Glen,

Clear, consise, evisceration of this sorry figure. Thank you

I was never a big fan, but having watched the CT senate primary and election pretty closely as a Lamont support I find Lieberman to be truely repulsive by this point. Was he always such a tool or did he really make a deal with the devil (Rove) to win in November? He must know how he looks at this point, doesn't he? Can he possible not know how dishonest he has been? Does he care?

I guess Atrios would make this a "simple answers to simple questions" (or however he puts it) post by writing:

tool, no, yes, no.

I guess the only real question is whether there was a deal on top of the rest of the dishonesty.