What the hell is with the War Room and Joe Lieberman? How about another topic this week?

The press is Manufacturing Consent for the war specifically and right-wing politics generally. I've certainly never seen that before.

As of this morning, August 7, the DCCC is STILL counseling the Democratic nominee in my Congressional district to avoid criticizing the Iraq war. This candidate is a Vietnam combat vet and veteran of the state house with the best chance in 12 years to beat the weak-ass republican incumbent. And the DLC and DCCC are giving him precisely the same advice that has caused Democrats to LOSE in 2000, 2002, and 2004: "act like a republican." Which is more than ordinarily insane this year, since it's the REPUBLICAN candidates who are doing the most criticizing of Bush and the war!

Why would it be such a disaster for the Democratic Party to move to the left? Instead of watering things down, giving a clearer choice to voters between candidates on the left and right could be a good thing, and could result in a more informed electorate.

Opposition to the war is in my mind the most patriotic action an American citizen can take. The policies of the US government being perpetrated around the world do not reflect the will, standards and morals (not religious but social) of this country.

I'm certainly no fan of Joe Leiberman. He deserves to be defeated even if he opposed the war. He's been a terrible senator on any number of issues, most notably civil justice issues, for many years. And I don't think it will be the end of the Democratic party if he's defeated.

However, the argument that too much anti-war emphasis will, in the long run, hurt the Democratic party, is one that you take much too lightly. The Iraq war is more unpopular than the Vietnam war was, but that earlier war still provides us with our best model for understanding the politics of our current situation. Democratic opposition to that war left a generation of voters with the impression that Democrats were soft on national security. And the same can happen here.

Fear of domestic terrorism is still a powerful issue for many voters. We must be seen as strong in this fight. It is not enough to talk about fighting a smarter war on terrorism. God knows that would, in fact, not be difficult. But huge numbers of swing voters equate smarter with weaker. This may not be fair, but it is real.

So I guess my bottom line is that we can run agains Joe Leiberman. But I think it's better to run against him on a broad range of issues where he's lost touch, not just on the war. And I think that is we become a one issue party, we do so at our long term peril.

There is little doubt a danger exists in Democratic opposition to the war in Iraq. Whether or not it's justified, much of the country seems to believe Democrats are a bunch of wusses. If the Democratic opposition to the war is perceived as pacifism, it could spell disaster in November.

There are two keys, I believe. The Democrats must exploit the ineptitude of the war's execution. They must convince the electorate that the Democratic Party would be more militarily competent. Second, the Democrats should take a page from the Republican playbook by fearmongering--argue that the war has made us less safe.

Otherwise, Democrats may come across as wussy pacifists who won't fight for our protection.

It's also worthwhile to remember that there is less danger for a Republican opponent to the war, because the party has already established its national security credentials.

In other words, only Nixon could go to China.

Cokie Roberts is the pits. But I think Sam Donaldson pointed out that Lamont is in step with the majority of Americans, who want to see an end to this wasteful and needless war.

I agree that Democrats have to be about more than Iraq, which, after all, is only the most glaringly inept aspect of the Republican regime that has held power for more than five years. How's this for a campaign message: It's not an issue of right and left, it's an issue of right and wrong. The Republicans have done nothing right. Who in the world would expect them to put things right after such a poor performance?

Last of all, I believe we can mount a vigorous effort against terrorism without sacrificing the Constitution or our American ideals of liberty and justice for all. If our Constitution should be discarded in the name of fighting terrorism, what will we have left that's worth defending?

Quoting from a previous letter referring to the Republicans

"because the party has already established its national security credentials"

That anyone can type that without spewing their coffee is just a testament to the degree to which the storytellers and spin doctors have poisoned our national discourse. The Republicans currently in control have done more lasting damage to our national security than I would have even imagined possible 4 years ago. If for no other reason than the fact that the Iraq war has shown the world exactly what we are incapable of accomplishing and thus emboldened our enemies.

This is a good piece, but at its end, it can't resist taking a cheap shot at John Kerry and his supposed inconsistency on Iraq.

Half-truths over Kerry's position on the war in Iraq were fomented first by the Dean campaign and later on by the Bush campaign. Without dredging up the fine details, these exaggerations became the accepted truth in much the same fashion that 50% of Americans still believe we found WMD in Iraq. While they are both good case studies in gullibility, they also both happen to be untrue.

In fact, in October of 2003, the New York Times devoted a story to the issue of Kerry and Iraq and found that Senator Kerry had been consistent in his positions. Here's a passage from that piece:

"Though his emphasis has shifted, Mr. Kerry's writings, statements and speeches from before the vote on using force through now do show consistent underpinnings. He argued for using the threat of force to support the weapons-inspection program, but only using force when all other options were exhausted. And he often warned that the greatest challenge would be in stabilizing postwar Iraq."

So a close look by a reporter found that Kerry, despite Dean's harpings, had been consistent. Unfortunately, the spin of Dean, and later on Bush, became the accepted dogma on the subject.

This is of course all water under the bridge, but I have to say that while I certainly expect the people at FOX to repeat distortions, I don't expect it at Salon.