The Lamont-Lieberman Debate: Lieberman Wins the Battle and Loses the War

I thought Lamont won, but then I’m crazed about Iraq. My wife and Imus both said that Lieberman won. He seemed far more rounded as a person. Imus called Lamont a pencil-neck.

But if Lieberman won, he damaged himself among the engaged, like myself. As Howard Fineman of Newsweek said on Imus, Lieberman seemed angry and rattled. He’s in real trouble, and knows it.

Fineman also made a revealing statement: Lieberman had shown “courage” in voting for the Iraq war. This is the conventional wisdom now in Washington, where as Paul Krugman said so beautifully, To be credible on national security, you have to have been wrong about Iraq.

Why is it the conventional wisdom? Because all the columnists were for this war and they’re still covering their asses now that even blockheads are questioning their judgment. As Fineman said in his role as a cheerleader in 2003 (per FAIR): “We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back.” Well, I remember disunity. I remember people saying, Not in my name.

Courage wasn’t going along with a foolish idea that would alienate the Arab world and turn Iraq into a terrorist-breeding hellhole, it was opposing it. Ned Lamont’s riding that wave.