Following up on the emerging split on Iraq between conservative icon W.F. Buckley and his protégé Joe Lieberman, Glenn Greenwald, in his usual comprehensive way, absolutely destroys the hypocrisy of the GOP's attempts to smear Howard Dean for saying almost exactly the same thing three months ago, and for being correct about Iraq in the first place:

Bill Buckley has now unmasked himself as a cowardly, anti-American ally of Al Qaeda. He wants to wave the white flag to terrorists, and has sabatoged the Commander-in-Chief’s war effort by declaring it a failure. Shouldn’t we bring criminal charges against Buckley, along with demands that he be hanged? On what ground can any of the Bush followers who have long equated opposition to the war with subversion and treason -- and who branded Howard Dean a traitor for a statement identical to the one Buckley made -- oppose those efforts?

Hmm... I seem to remember another Dean critic saying something similar in the heat of a primary campaign:

"He thinks we're not safer by removing a homicidal maniac," Lieberman said in a speech. "The fact is that Governor Dean has made a series of dubious judgments and irresponsible statements in this campaign that together signal that he would take us back to the days when we Democrats were not trusted to defend our security."

"Dubious judgments?" That's funny. In light of Joe's continuing brainlock on this issue, we need to ask the question Greenwald asks in another must-read post at Crooks and Liars: whose judgment on the Iraq war is entitled to respect here?

If Democrats are ever going to be credible on national security - which we absolutely must be, and which we are currently becoming in spite of Lonely Joe - we need to continue to show how our collective judgment is deserving of more respect, and how our leaders are deserving of more authority than those who have failed us.

Joe Lieberman is among those who have failed us. He weakens both our party and our nation on matters of national security.