| Here's Joe on the Ray and Diane show from yesterday morning (mp3), in just his latest attack on Democrats - and Harry Reid in particular:
Q. There was a big flap yesterday about some comments made by Harry Reid concerning Gen. Petraeus, and the outgoing Peter Pace, saying they were incompetent, basically. Is that useful, and do you know that to be true or not... It's generally being reported in a lot of places.
LIEBERMAN: I don't know what Harry Reid is up to. I was very upset, even offended, by what he said about General Pace and General Petraeus. Look, you call General Pace incompetent? That's abs - this is a man who has devoted his entire life to the Marine corps, the service of our country, defense of our country.
Q. Why is he doing this? Why is Reid doing this?
LIEBERMAN: I have no idea. Then to say that Petraeus is out of touch? I mean, Harry Reid in Washington says David Petraeus, who's in Baghdad, away from his family, heroically trying to rally our forces and succeed over in Iraq... that he's out of touch? I mean, it's just - the danger here - my colleagues who have been opposed to the war have said "we're opposed to the war, but we support our troops." But when you start to attack the top two generals, you know, that's... that's wrong. I hope he apologizes, I just hope he misstated...
This isn't the first time Joe has gone after Reid by reinforcing a right-wing attack. Take this, from April:
“This week witnessed horrific terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists in Iraq, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to declare that the war is ‘lost.’...
The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes – abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week’s atrocities – or whether we stand united to fight them."
And yet, from Harry, we continually only hear either silence or fawning descriptions like this, from March on the senate floor:
"In this chamber is Joe Lieberman and there isn't a senator I have more respect for than Joe Lieberman."
(Update:) Or, describing Lieberman as the "greatest gentleman in the Senate":
"As strongly as he is opposed to what the vast majority of Democrats want, he also has been a gentleman within the caucus," the Nevadan told reporters May 3. "We don't have a greater gentleman in the Senate than Joe Lieberman."
(Update 2:) Or, saying Joe "means well" when he calls for bombing Iran (h/t Scarce):
So, I know Joe feels strongly about that part of the world. I do too. But the invasion of [Iran] is only going to destabilize that part of the world more.... I know Joe means well, but I don’t agree with him.
I know Harry was a boxer, but he seems content to just sit back and take uppercut after uppercut from a man whose support he doesn't need in order to retain his position of Majority Leader, and whose moral authority he perplexingly continues to endorse in the process.
He just told you that you don't support the troops, that he's "offended" by you, that you're all but acting in league with Al Qaeda, and completely mocked you in the process.
And you reply by saying "there isn't a senator I have more respect for" than this man, lending weight to his idle and toothless threats to switch parties in the process.
It's well past time for some major figure in the Democratic party to kick this man's ass.