| Lieberman drops yet another huge load of manure on the pages of today's Wall Street Journal, with the help of comrade-in-mendacity McCain:
The Bush administration clung for too long to a flawed strategy in this war, despite growing evidence of its failure. Now advocates of withdrawal risk making the exact same mistake, by refusing to re-examine their own conviction that Gen. Petraeus's strategy cannot succeed and that the war is "lost," despite rising evidence to the contrary.
Bull. Shit., Joe:
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
That was from November 2005, a time period during which Sen. Lieberman is now claiming he thought the Bush administration was "clinging to a flawed strategy despite growing evidence of its failure."
And this was from a month later:
"The last two weeks have been critically important and I believe may be seen as a turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism," Lieberman told reporters after he and a bipartisan group of senators met with Bush and top administration officials on the war.
"I believe the president has begun a new conversation with the American people, looking back and talking again about why we went into Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, why we remain there, why success in Iraq is so critical to America's national security, and how we intend to win," he said.
I'm sure the assembled Hannity/Lieberman/Coulter fanclub will love this stuff tomorrow in Jersey.
It's all just more progress, for a man who long ago severed any remaining relationship between himself and reality.
Update: joejoejoe very helpfully links to the full history of Lieberman's WSJ proclamations of support for Bush's war. Note the many mentions of Bush's "flawed strategy" and the "growing evidence of its failure"... such as an entire op-ed devoted to defending Rumsfeld as Abu Ghraib broke:
October 29, 2001 - Target No. 2: Saddam
Destroying al Qaeda is only the first step in this war. [3 weeks after U.S. military action in Afghanistan began.]
October 7, 2002 - Our Resolution
Why Democrats should support the president on Iraq.
[break from WSJ neocon duties to run for Democratic nomination in '04. Highlight of Lieberman run, a "three-way tie for third*" in New Hampshire, a state he moved to for the purposes of running. *5th place]
May 14, 2004 - 'Let Us Have Faith'
Why Rumsfeld must stay.
November 29, 2005 - Our Troops Must Stay
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.
[break from WSJ neocon duties to run for Democratic Senate nomination in '06. Highlight of Lieberman run, Ned Lamont kicked his ass right out of the party. Lieberman wins general election by lying to Connecticut voters about wanting to bring U.S. troops home.]
February 26, 2007 - The Choice on Iraq
"I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next."
June 15, 2007 - What I Saw in Iraq
Iran remains a problem, but Anbar has joined the fight against terror.
July 6, 2007 - Iran's Proxy War
Tehran is on the offensive against us throughout the Middle East. Will Congress respond?
August 20, 2007 - Al Qaeda's Travel Agent
Damascus International Airport is a hub for terrorists.
September 10, 2007 - Listening to Petraeus
The president had the courage to change course on Iraq. Does Congress?