In his recent interview with a right-wing blog (the same one where he threatened Sens. Dodd and Kerry for having the gall to support CT Democrats), Sen. Lieberman may have given away more than he intended (hat tip TalkLeft):

SIMON: -- on this. That if you do win -- and you're doing well at the moment -- if you do win as an Independent, you will still then become a Democrat, stay as a Democrat and caucus with the Democrats.

LIEBERMAN: Yeah. The critical thing is to caucus with the Democrats because if you don't caucus with a party, you don't have the opportunity to hold your seniority in the committee assignments that you've got and that's important to the folks back home.

Lieberman, in his own words: "the critical thing" about even nominally remaining a Democrat is to maintain seniority. Because that maintains influence.

Otherwise, he'd switch.

But, following that logic, and assuming (for the minute) an election resulting in an evenly split senate with Sen. Lieberman-for-Lieberman holding the balance of power... wouldn't it be just as "important to the folks back home" for him to caucus with the Republicans and really maximize his influence?

Especially when (again, hypothetically) he will have remained in the senate only due to Republican political support, Republican financial support, and - most importantly - Republican votes?

Again, Novak this weekend:

Lieberman has announced he will stay in the Democratic caucus if re-elected. But Republicans backing him against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee, hope for a change of heart by Lieberman.

He has already vociferously attacked Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Marcy Kaptur, Chris Dodd, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, and other Democrats this campaign.

Not a thing about Shays, Simmons, or Johnson. Or Rell. Or Bush. Or Cheney.

He just rolled out "Dems for Joe" (with a roster as thin as "Dems for Bush") with much attempted fanfare.

Not a thing about "Republicans for Joe"... because it would be so obviously redundant.

Sen. Lieberman is already functionally a Republican. Switching would just be a formality.

Oh, Tammy.

Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman, Tammy Sun, on Friday dismissed [Wesley] Clark's endorsement of the senator's opponent.

"Joe Lieberman is running for Senate because he's trying to change the kind of partisan name-calling apparent in Wes Clark's recent statement supporting Ned Lamont," she said. "This is just more of the same negative attacks from the Lamont campaign."

"Partisan name-calling."

Like... this?

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) accused [Wesley] Clark of making a "journey of political convenience, not conviction" after Clark described in the debate how he had become a Democrat after supporting Presidents Ronald Reagan and Richard M. Nixon and just two years ago praising President Bush at a Republican dinner when Democrats were fighting Bush's tax cuts.

In his statement, Lieberman raised the question of how Clark could now call himself a proud Democrat when at the time he was praising Bush's tax cuts. "I was fighting that reckless economic strategy [of the administration] while Wes Clark was working to forward the Republican agenda by raising money for the Republican Party," Lieberman said.

(from "Clark Makes First N.H. Stop, Draws Criticism; Lieberman Assails Rival's Past Support for GOP," Dan Balz, Washington Post, September 27th, 2003.)

Or... this?

Dean assailed Kerry and Lieberman for supporting some of the tax cuts favored by President Bush, and said that the Democrats won't be able to defeat Bush by acting like "Bush Lite" - a phrase moderator Gwen Ifill used to challenge Lieberman by saying: "That's the rap on you."

The Connecticut senator responded, "Nobody's used the reference 'Bush Lite' to me since Wes Clark became a Democrat and got into this presidential race."

(from "Democrats Attack Bush on Iraq in Lively Debate, Candidates' Views Roundly Challenged," Patrick Healy, and Anne E. Kornblut, Boston Globe, October 27, 2003)

It's not just Mel Sembler.

According to Robert Novak, the entire Republican establishment is coalescing around the Lieberman Party... in the hopes that it will pay off:

GWB for Joe

George W. Bush moved a step closer to Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman's re-election bid in Connecticut as an independent candidate when Tom Kuhn, the president's college roommate and close friend, co-sponsored a Lieberman fund-raising luncheon Thursday in downtown Washington.

Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, raised more than $100,000 for Bush in the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. Also among the Lieberman event's sponsors was Rick Shelby, a longtime Republican operative who currently is executive vice president of the American Gas Association.

The luncheon's sponsors pressed fellow Republican lobbyists to pay a minimum of $1,000 a ticket. Lieberman has announced he will stay in the Democratic caucus if re-elected. But Republicans backing him against antiwar candidate Ned Lamont, the Democratic nominee, hope for a change of heart by Lieberman.

From an official statement:

I believe the President should have all tools necessary to fight terrorism, but the tools must be workable and able to get the job done. I would have opposed the detainee bill passed by the Senate yesterday. We've already wasted five years and not prosecuted one terrorist because President Bush abused power and put an unconstitutional system in place. The bill that passed the senate makes those same mistakes and does not make America safer. I believe it violates the constitution, is at odds with our values, puts our troops in jeopardy, and will lead to further delays in bringing terrorists to justice. It is time for Washington to start learning from the very grave mistakes of the last five years, instead of repeating them. I agree with Secretary Colin Powell who recently said "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk." It's time for us to get this right. Our national security depends on it.

Don Michak in the Journal-Inquirer:

Ned Lamont, the Greenwich Democrat who defeated Lieberman in his party's primary last month, today blasted Lieberman for what he described as succumbing to a political game orchestrated by Bush and the Republicans who control Congress.

"This is all politics, it has nothing to do with fighting a real war on terrorism," Lamont said. "This is the flag-burning amendment of national security. It's just an irrelevant game of politics."

"If I was Bush I would push this, especially with his own National Intelligence Estimate saying that the war in Iraq had made America less secure and with the war inflaming tempers around the world," he added. "With his own intelligence agencies contradicting everything that Bush and Lieberman have said, they have to shore up their defense, so they come up with this."

Lamont also said he would have opposed the bill backed by Lieberman, "because it won't withstand legal scrutiny."

"We haven't brought any of these terrorists to justice in the last three years because it was struck down by the Supreme Court and we're setting ourselves up to make the same mistake again," he said. "The idea that we can detain people who are in this country absolutely legally without rights, it's not American."

Sen. Lieberman all but admitted he was playing a "political game" when he looked around to see how every other senator voted before deciding how to cast his vote.

Update: Sen. Dodd, quoted in the Times today:

“The only reason to worry about the politics of it is if you don’t understand it and don’t have the guts to stand up and defend your vote,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, who is considering a presidential race.

If nothing else, it's obvious Sen. Lieberman was worried about the politics of it. He wouldn't have waited around to be the 99th - and last - senator to vote on the bill if he hadn't been.

Over at at Hat City Blog, CTBlogger has a great write-up of Ned's appearance at Danbury High School yesterday:

The man who's looking to give Joe Lieberman his pink slip answered a series interesting questions from the packed audience ranging from the Iraq War, immigration, and the situation in Darfur, to the No Child Left Behind Law, urban violence and rising college tuition costs.

I have to say, the students asked better question than most other people did on the various Lamont events I've attended. It's promising to see students taking an interest into issues that will have an impact on their lives.

More at the Danbury News-Times:

When asked after the discussion why he would take time out of a hectic campaign to meet with students, few old enough to vote, Lamont looked surprised and answered promptly.

"I think we're short-changing kids," he said. "I want to make sure there are opportunities for them. It's not just politics. I want these kids to know they can go out and do things and make a difference."

New SUSA numbers for 50-state tracking:

Sen. Lieberman is in a three-way tie for 87th most popular Senator in the country (out of 100), according to net approval ratings.

And, as for trends, take a look at "Approval - All Adults" (click to enlarge):



Aerodynamic, isn't it?

On final passage of S. 3930.

He was the last senator to vote, although he had been standing around the senate floor for a good ten minutes.

I guess he wanted to see how everyone else voted first.

"Principles" in action.

Busy day:

• Mark Warner also sent out an email supporting Ned today. Good stuff:
  

  Ned Lamont and I come from the business world—where results matter and no one considers it a good day’s work to have just poked the other side in the eye and gotten nothing done. That’s now how it is right now in Washington . Ned Lamont gets it. Washington needs an entrepreneurial approach, Washington needs Ned Lamont....
  
  Ned Lamont’s business-like approach is also his world view. He calls for a return to an American foreign policy that unites our friends and divides our enemies — and a call that will inevitably sweep through November’s elections....
  
  The current Republican leadership isn’t making us safer – or any more prepared to compete in a global economy. As a successful entrepreneur, Ned Lamont knows how to do both. It’s time for congressional leadership that will stand up to the current administration and move America forward. It’s time to put Ned Lamont in the U.S. Senate.



• Sen. Lieberman sends Sen. Dodd, Sen. Kennedy, and Al Gore the same message he's already sent - repeatedly - to CT Democrats: "Drop Dead":
  

  Lieberman – the former Democrat now running as an Independent to retain his Connecticut senate seat – was asked by PJM’s CEO Roger Simon if he could forgive once close friends Chris Dodd, Al Gore and Teddy Kennedy, for endorsing his opponent Ned Lamont, the former Democratic Party vice-presidential candidate responded: “I can forgive … but I probably won’t forget.”



• Sen. Kerry is coming to CT:
  

  The Massachusetts senator, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, plans to travel to the state Oct. 25 for Lamont. Kerry's running mate, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, appeared at a Lamont rally last month.



• Ned was in Danbury this morning this morning talking to high school students:
  

  The Iraq War, the Geneva Conventions, immigration, rising college tuition, and urban violence all found their way into a discussion among about 100 students at Danbury High School and Democratic senatorial candidate Ned Lamont this morning.

Gen. Wesley Clark just sent an email to his supporters in advance of this weekend's fundraising deadline:

In Connecticut, Ned Lamont is running the type of campaign all Democrats can be proud of. Standing up to President Bush's failed policy in Iraq, dispensing with self-serving and wishy-washy notions of "independence," and pledging to invest in America's future, Ned Lamont is a candidate for Senate who I am proud to endorse.

Of course Ned's opponent, Joe Lieberman, after refusing to abide by the results of August's Democratic primary election, has decided to do his best to drag every Connecticut Democrat's electoral prospects down with him. He continues to provide political cover to President Bush and other local Republicans despite their clearly failed policies.

By supporting Ned Lamont, you are not only helping to elect a proud Democrat to the U.S. Senate from Connecticut, but you are also helping three Democratic challengers in tough House races who are running with Ned's name at the top of the ticket.

You can contribute via Clark's ActBlue page here.

Sign up for email updates from from Gen. Clark here.

After reading today's utterly depressing New York Times editorial, it is beyond heartening to see some real leadership from a Connecticut senator on this issue (via Atrios):

Mr. President, the Administration and Republican leadership would have the American people believe that the War on Terror requires a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the basic tenets upon which our country was founded -- but not both. This canard has been showcased in every recent election cycle.

I fully reject that reasoning. We can, and we must, balance our responsibilities to bring terrorists to justice, while at the same time protecting what it means to be America. To choose the rule of law over the passion of the moment takes courage. But it is the right thing to do if we are to uphold the values of equal justice and due process that are codified in our Constitution....

This history is particularly personal to me. My father, Thomas Dodd, worked alongside Justice Robert Jackson in prosecuting these trials at Nuremberg. He viewed Nuremberg as one of the most pivotal moments in our history – where America chose to uphold the rule of law rather than succumb to rule of the mob. Let me be clear: these enemies of the United States were not given the opportunity to walk away from their crimes. Rather, they were given the right to face their accuser, the right to confront evidence against them, and the right to a fair trial. Underlying that decision was the conviction that this nation must not tailor its most fundamental principles to the conflict of the moment -- and the recognition that if we did, we would be walking in the very footsteps of the enemies we despised....

Mr. President, I will take a backseat to no one in supporting the use of whatever tools are available to keep America safe. But the use of waterboarding and extreme sleep deprivation, to name just a few, undermines America’s moral authority and provides dubious results. This arbitrary deadline makes a mockery of the principle underlying the prohibition...

We must do everything in our power to protect our country from threats to our national security but it is also incumbent upon every one of us to protect the very foundation upon which our nation was established. This legislation will not achieve these aims.

I support the efforts of our colleagues, Senators Levin, Specter, Kennedy, Rockefeller and Byrd to correct the serious defects with the pending legislation. It now appears doubtful that any of these amendments are likely to be adopted by the Senate. Therefore, in good conscience I will vote no on final passage when that occurs later today.

Sen. Dodd's full prepared remarks below the fold...

Remarks of Senator Dodd 9/28/06, as prepared:

Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, America was attacked by ruthless enemies of this country. It is my strong belief that those responsible for orchestrating this plot, and anyone else who seeks to do harm to our nation and our citizens, must be brought to justice, and punished severely.

These are extraordinary times, and we must act in a way that fully safeguards America’s national security. That is why I support the concept of military commissions -- to protect U.S. intelligence and expedite judicial proceedings vital to military action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In my view, as we develop such means, we must also ensure that our actions are not counter-productive to our overall efforts to protect America at all levels.

As you know Mr. President, 430 detainees are being held in Guantanamo Bay facilities as so called “enemy combatants.” The President has claimed the authority to detain prisoners indefinitely without formally charging them with a crime, to use questionable interrogation practices which some experts say violate international law banning torture, and to set up secret tribunals in which some detainees could be convicted without ever seeing the evidence against them, while others receive no trials at all. The Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld this activity is unconstitutional. But the groundwork for this decision was laid in the Supreme court decision Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, two years ago, in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor declared “A state of war is not a blank check for the President."

Mr. President, the Administration and Republican leadership would have the American people believe that the War on Terror requires a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the basic tenets upon which our country was founded -- but not both. This canard has been showcased in every recent election cycle.

I fully reject that reasoning. We can, and we must, balance our responsibilities to bring terrorists to justice, while at the same time protecting what it means to be America. To choose the rule of law over the passion of the moment takes courage. But it is the right thing to do if we are to uphold the values of equal justice and due process that are codified in our Constitution.

Our founding fathers established the legal framework of our country on the premise that those in government are not infallible. America’s leaders knew this sixty years ago, when they determined how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of horrendous crimes. There were strong and persuasive voices, at the time, crying out for the execution of these men who had commanded with ruthless efficiency the slaughter of six million innocent Jews and five million other innocent men, women, and children. After World War II, our country was forced to decide if the accused criminals deserved a trial or execution.

This history is particularly personal to me. My father, Thomas Dodd, worked alongside Justice Robert Jackson in prosecuting these trials at Nuremberg. He viewed Nuremberg as one of the most pivotal moments in our history – where America chose to uphold the rule of law rather than succumb to rule of the mob. Let me be clear: these enemies of the United States were not given the opportunity to walk away from their crimes. Rather, they were given the right to face their accuser, the right to confront evidence against them, and the right to a fair trial. Underlying that decision was the conviction that this nation must not tailor its most fundamental principles to the conflict of the moment -- and the recognition that if we did, we would be walking in the very footsteps of the enemies we despised.

As we approach the 60th anniversary of the first verdict of the Nuremburg trials this Saturday, it is important to reflect on the implications of the past as we face new challenges, new enemies, and new decisions. Much as our actions in the post-war period affected our nation’s standing in the world, so too do our actions in the post 9-11 era.

The Administration’s initial legislative proposal reinstated secret tribunals and redefined Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Senators on both sides of the aisle and dozens of retired members of the military opposed this proposal.

The Armed Services Committee decided not to rubber-stamp the Administration’s legislation, working in a bipartisan way to craft a more narrowly tailored approach. Unfortunately the bill that we are discussing today is not the one which passed through the Committee process.

The bill before us was worked out between several of my Republican colleagues and the White House and does contain some improvements over the Bush Administration’s original proposal. However, I remain concerned about several provisions in the pending legislation. The bill would strip detainees of their habeas corpus rights – a very troublesome provision. There is a strong belief among Senators on both sides of the aisle that this provision is not only inadvisable, it is flatly unconstitutional.

The Armed Services Committee bill prohibited the use of all evidence that was coerced through illegal methods. The bill before us today only prohibits “cruel, unusual, or inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution” obtained after December 30, 2005. The Administration claims that they need to employ interrogation techniques whose methods are questionable both morally and practicably. As you know Mr. President, this notion has been dispelled handily by one of our colleagues who has first hand experience as a prisoner of war. In a Newsweek op-ed dated November 21, 2005, our colleague Senator McCain wrote, “The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear—whether it is true or false—if he believes it will relieve his suffering.”

Mr. President, I will take a backseat to no one in supporting the use of whatever tools are available to keep America safe. But the use of waterboarding and extreme sleep deprivation, to name just a few, undermines America’s moral authority and provides dubious results. This arbitrary deadline makes a mockery of the principle underlying the prohibition and seems to run counter to the view’s expressed in Senator McCain’s op-ed.

I applaud the fact that this bill drops the language in which the United States would seek to redefine its commitments under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. However, I am deeply troubled that this legislation allows the President to define our commitments under the Geneva Conventions through regulation rather than legislation. In doing so, Congress is shirking its oversight responsibilities. We undermine the separation of powers, a guiding doctrine of our Constitution, in allowing the Executive branch to unilaterally decree what interrogation techniques are permitted without legislative review.

We must do everything in our power to protect our country from threats to our national security but it is also incumbent upon every one of us to protect the very foundation upon which our nation was established. This legislation will not achieve these aims.

I support the efforts of our colleagues, Senators Levin, Specter, Kennedy, Rockefeller and Byrd to correct the serious defects with the pending legislation. It now appears doubtful that any of these amendments are likely to be adopted by the Senate. Therefore, in good conscience I will vote no on final passage when that occurs later today.

As Justice Jackson said at Nuremberg, “we must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well.” Mr. President, to rubber-stamp the Administration’s bill would poison one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy. I urge my colleagues not to allow that to happen.

From a bombshell new book, Bob Woodward on more intelligence that Bush and Lieberman are - right now - actively disregarding and misleading the American people about:

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,’” he tells Wallace. “Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward.

The new Zogby/WSJ poll out today shows the race well within the margin of error, with Lieberman (Lieberman) at 45.8%, Lamont at 44%:



Very clear trendline, too.

Update: An emailer writes in with words that I wish I had come up with myself:

Everyone wants to be a media critic and a prognosticator and talk about what the campaign is not doing, but what they're missing is that they ARE the campaign. In a very real sense. What they are not doing is what the campaign is not doing.

Want to help? Do a couple of hours of phone-banking tonight. Knock on some doors this weekend. Contact your local CD office and volunteer. They'd love to have you.

Or, if you're out of state, use the brand-new Family, Friends, and Neighbors tool to send personalized postcards to your friends in CT - Dems, Republicans, and unaffiliateds.

This is the type of work that won the primary. And this is the type of work that will win in November.

• New Q-Poll out this morning, as Lieberman falls under 50% for the first time in Quinnipiac: Lieberman (Lieberman) 49%, Lamont (D) 39%, Schlesinger (R) 5% (LVs). This is -4 for Lieberman from their last poll in August, and also goes against other recent polls showing the race a dead heat. It's clear by now that Democrats strongly back Lamont and Republicans strongly back Lieberman (but once again here, even Ned does better with Republicans than Schlesinger does). The key differences seem to rest with "likely voter" models (the Q-Poll did not release RV data this time), as well as predicting which way unaffliateds will go - in this poll they break for Lieberman, in the most recent ARG poll, they break for Lamont.


• Other interesting bits: Ned's favorability numbers are still rising as Republicans and Independents get to know him (+6 since last month) while his unfavorable numbers are actually falling as more people form opinions of him. And Iraq continues to be the most important issue for voters - Bush's approval is at 33% (28% on the issue of Iraq), 62% say going into Iraq was the wrong decision, 51% say we should either decrease troop levels or withdraw all troops, and 55% say we are losing the war in Iraq. It's clear why Sen. Lieberman dosen't want to talk about Iraq, even though it's the single most important issue for all CT voters (35% of them).


• Truer words... from Alan Schlesinger, a fine upstanding Republican:
  

  Schlesinger, 48, the former mayor of Derby, also accused Lieberman of shying from more debates to avoid criticism of his record. The three campaigns have agreed to two debates on Oct. 16 and Oct. 23.
  
  "I think he's afraid that when people see that there's a moderate fiscal conservative running this year and that his record is straight liberal ... I think he's worried that a lot of his base is going to erode that he needs in this election," Schlesinger said.



• People for the American Way endorsed Ned Lamont yesterday, based solely on domestic issues:
  

  “Ned Lamont strongly backs public schools, while Joe Lieberman has voted for vouchers,” Collins said. “Ned Lamont fully supports privacy rights, while Joe Lieberman said legislative intervention was appropriate in the Terry Schiavo case. Joe Lieberman voted to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court and voted against a filibuster of the Samuel Alito nomination; Ned Lamont would forcefully oppose far-right nominees. And on other issues, from church-state separation to marriage equality to demonstrating a willingness to stand up to President Bush, Ned Lamont is clearly the better choice.”



• According to the Day, Ambassador Joe Wilson will be campaigning with Annie Lamont and George Jepsen this weekend at a fundraiser in Old Saybrook.


• The Center for Responsive Politics has the last word on who is trying to "buy" a senate seat in this race:
  

  According to campaign finance information available as of Sept. 13, Lieberman had raised more than twice Lamont’s receipts and 78 times Schlesinger’s.

  
  Interestingly, Sen. Lieberman had no problem campaigning for Mark Dayton (D-MN) in 2000, who spent $11 million of his own money, outspending his opponent by $5 million. He had no problem campaigning for Jon Corzine (D-NJ) in 2000, who spent an amazing $60 million of his own money, outspending his opponent almost 10-to-1.
  
  Sen. Lieberman has been furious since day one of this race that, thanks to massive grassroots support as well as personal finances, a challenger might be be able to spend perhaps half as much as he is going to on this race - and without being beholden to PACs and disgusting people like Mel Sembler:
  

  The question everyone asks is why Sembler’s sordid past hasn’t caught up with him. Far from hiding his association with Straight, he’s still boasting about his connection to the program on his corporate website.
  
  The short answer is that Joe’s new friend Mel is one of the most well-connected Republican operatives in America....
  
  It says a lot about this country that one of the most notorious (and unrepentant) child abusers in our history considered a leading authority on treating drug abuse.
  
  It says a lot about Joe Lieberman that he’s the first "Democrat" ever to benefit from Sembler’s fundraising mojo.

  
  It also serves as a handy diversion from talking about Iraq - the issue CT voters care about most in this election.

Suprise, surprise. When your senator's campaign is funded by the likes of Mel Sembler, and supported by the likes of Bill Kristol, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney, this is the type of oversight you get on Iraq.

Paul Bass:

Leading Democrats Wednesday, like U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, called on Bush to release the entire document in order to give the public "the full story." The Bush administration refused, saying that to release the full report would endanger lives by revealing classified secrets.

Asked during the conference call where he stood, Lieberman declined to join the Democrats' call.

"Look, it's a shame that this was leaked," he said. "But I think in the context of this being leaked [to the press], it was important that the essence of it be" released.

From the Washington Post:

A day after his "major" address on Iraq, it was back to "stay the course" with Sen. Lieberman, glad-handing the Iraqi president, refusing to put any pressure him, and claiming "progress" was being made.

From the front page of the Courant, this wasn't the headline he wanted to see (pdf of front page here):

A day after saying in a major campaign speech that "we must get tougher with the Iraqi political leadership," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman met Tuesday with Iraq's president and had a pleasant conversation that ended with the two men agreeing progress is being made....

Asked if he followed through on Monday's "get tough" message, Lieberman said, "This is a question of allies working together. With a friend, you don't essentially put a gun to their head."...

"If anyone asks what progress has been made in Iraq as a result of American involvement, look at this man," Lieberman said. "He has taken the place of Saddam Hussein."

Not every Senator agreed. Like, say, Sen. Clinton (D-NY):

Not all senators were so encouraged after meeting with Talabani. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who attended the meeting, afterward sharply criticized U.S. policies and cited a lack of progress.

"The writing is on the wall and it doesn't say, `Mission accomplished,"' Clinton said.

And, of course, Sen. Kerry (D-MA):

"We don't need misleading speeches. We don't need slogans. We need leaders who will tell it straight and stand up to this administration and say it's time to change course. Ned Lamont is providing that kind of leadership," Kerry said.

Sen. Lieberman put forward no specifics and even went back to claiming there were "terrorists in Iraq" before the war started:

At the Capitol, though, Lieberman would not specifically define what he meant by rejecting an open-ended commitment, saying his own goal "is not as neat as a deadline but a deadline is a deadly and disastrous alternative."...

Even the news about the National Intelligence Estimate, which found that the Iraq war had spread terrorism, did not deter Lieberman.

"Are there terrorists in Iraq? Of course there are. That's a reason we went in," he said. But he would not comment on the report itself, saying, "We don't know what it says. We have to see it."

And two days after brushing aside the National Intelligence Estimate as meaningless, and one day after the report was partially declassified in an attempt to hold back a tide of bad headlines, this wasn't the headline Sen. Lieberman or President Bush wanted to see on the front page of NYTimes.com:

Portions of the report appear to bolster President Bush’s argument that the only way to defeat the terrorists is to keep unrelenting military pressure on them. But nowhere in the assessment is any evidence to support Mr. Bush’s confident-sounding assertion this month in Atlanta that “America is winning the war on terror.’’...

In short, it describes a jihadist movement that, for now, is simply outpacing Mr. Bush’s counterattacks.

“I guess the overall conclusion that you get from it is that we don’t have enough bullets given all the enemies we are creating,’’ said Bruce Hoffman, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University.

(A Connecticut Bob Production.)

In the round-up below, but worth repeating:

"The people who failed to prevent this disaster are not the ones you can count on to fix it."

- U.S. Senate candidate Jim Webb (D-VA), on Iraq.

As the Administration releases more of one NIE (but holds back on releasing another) revealing the dire situation in Iraq, it's worth noting again that past judgment and future performance are inexorably linked.

And those who got us into this mess, those who have consistently "lost the plot" on the reality facing our troops, and those who still refuse to admit to themselves that they were ever even the slightest bit wrong (or even allow themselves the "luxury" of self-reflection) are the ones least likely to lead us to success in the future.

• Jim Webb (D-VA) on Iraq:
  
  

  "The people who failed to prevent this disaster are not the ones you can count on to fix it. I'm Jim Webb. We need to end our occupation of Iraq, and to bring stability in the Middle East. We can do it... with the right kind of leadership. I approved this message because we need leaders in the senate, not followers.



• Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) on Iraq:
  
  

  "I think it's important to say this administration clearly has made the United States less safe, and as citizens of this country, we can't be afraid to say that. They have made us less safe, period, dot."



• Sen. Lieberman on Iraq:
  

  CLAIM:
  
  “I want to help end the war in Iraq.”
  
  - Joe Lieberman, 8/11/06
  
  FACT:
  
  LIEBERMAN PRESENTS PROPOSALS ON CONTINUING WARFARE IN IRAQ
  
  EAST HAMPTON — U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman unleashed a new attack on Democratic rival Ned Lamont on Iraq Monday, and unveiled his plan for going forward with the war.”
  
  - Waterbury Republican American, 9/26/06

Sen. Kerry, today:

Senator John Kerry on Connecticut's Iraq Debate

"Iraq has been a national security disaster and a terrible set-back in the war on terror. As Robert Kennedy said of Vietnam, there is enough blame to go around. We must all accept our responsibility to change course. We don't need misleading speeches. We don't need slogans. We need leaders who will tell it straight and stand up to this administration and say it's time to change course. Ned Lamont is providing that kind of leadership.

Senator Lieberman and I disagree deeply and profoundly on Iraq. No matter how much Senator Lieberman pretends otherwise, as we were debating a Senate resolution to change course on Iraq, our intelligence agencies were telling this Administration that America is less safe and more endangered by terrorists because of the failed stay-the-course policies in Iraq. There's just no excuse for continuing the old line that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror when in fact we know Iraq is a recruiting poster for terrorists while the real war on terror in Afghanistan spirals downwards.

The maxim that we'll stand down as Iraqis stand up is a myth. We need a deadline for the redeployment of American troops to force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. Aimless talk of stay the course is making things worse. Every time the Administration says we'll stay as long as it takes is an excuse for Iraqis to take as long as they want. We are stuck in a growing civil war that sets us back in the war on terror. It does a disservice to our troops to stick with a broken policy over and over again and expect different results. We need leadership with the courage to change course."

(Update: President Bush agrees with Sen. Lieberman, says it is "naive" and "a mistake" to assert that his Iraq policy has made us less safe.)

He admits he hasn't even read it, but Sen. Lieberman has good reason to want to avoid talking about it at all costs.

E.J. Dionne explains why in a must-read column in today's Washington Post (hat tip The Next Hurrah):

Among the most visible critics of the administration's approach have been generals, vets, parents with sons and daughters in the military, and foreign policy realists who think of themselves as moderate or even conservative opponents of what they see as the administration's radical direction.

That is why news over the weekend of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq is especially troublesome for Republican electoral chances. By finding that the war in Iraq has encouraged global terrorism and spawned a new generation of Islamic radicals, the report by 16 government intelligence services undercuts the administration's central argument that the Iraq war has made the United States safer....

The conventional, and accurate, view of this fall's elections is that Iraq is a Democratic issue and the broader war on terrorism is a Republican issue. Accordingly, Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid were understandably eager to point to the report as a commentary on the president's "repeated missteps in Iraq and his stubborn refusal to change course," as Reid put it Sunday.

But beneath the conventional account is a more revealing truth: that over the past four years, the burden of proof on the Iraq war has been turned on its head.

During the 2002 election campaign -- before the war had actually begun -- Democratic candidates all over the country fled the Iraq debate and feared raising any questions about Bush's national security choices. In 2006 it's the administration trying to keep Iraq out of the campaign and to move the public conversation to anything else as an alternative to an accounting for its war decisions that so many middle-of-the-road Americans now regret. There is no silent majority to bail the president out.

As DemFromCT notes:

This is an accountability election, and by supporting George W Bush, Republicans are accountable for the mess. That's a concept even an opinion columnist can understand.

Lieberman dismisses talk of his complete lack of judgment - remember, according to the NIE, he has backed a policy for four years now that has cost us thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, our national reputation, the readiness of our armed forces... and has made us less safe from terrorism - as a "luxury" we can't afford.

But accountability for such egregious errors is not a "luxury." It is a necessity.

The Courant reports in detail on Lieberman's speech yesterday (in which he completely brushed off the NIE's devastating conclusion that the Iraq war has made America less safe):

...Lieberman, in a 38-minute speech before a supportive audience at a Veterans of Foreign Wars post in this eastern Connecticut town, offered no specifics on how the U.S. might exhibit a tougher attitude or how the Iraqis might be pushed toward self-sufficiency.

He left without answering questions to return to Washington, where today he and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., will host a meeting with the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani.

He continues to believe the war was "justified," even though the intelligence community has determined it has made us less safe:

He referred only in passing to a recently disclosed National Intelligence Estimate, an assessment by U.S. spy agencies, that the war in Iraq has emboldened Islamic radicals, not made America safer. Lieberman said he continues to believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified.

And his staff admits he has taken no action in support of any of the suggestions in his rhetorical "plan":

Lieberman offered no new proposals, with the possible exception of a bipartisan working group that would include the top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate security committees. His staff said he has not yet sought support for such a group.

No plan. No action. No specifics. No questions allowed. No call for accountability. No change in approach.

And tomorrow? Surely no more discussion of Iraq, if Sen. Lieberman can help it.

His entire campaign is "stay the course" writ large.

Update: I took this morning off, but luckily it seems like everyone's doing a "round-up" these days. BranfordBoy does a great job summarizing the coverage of yesterday's events in other papers this morning.

Facts never stand in the way for Sen. Lieberman on Iraq.

Neither, apparently, does the collective judgment of 16 intelligence agencies.

From the WTNH news tonight (video here):

Mark Davis: "Does this NIE report in the [New York] Times change things for you?"

Lieberman: "I'm going to talk about it during the remarks."

Davis: "Does it change things or not?"

Lieberman: "No!"

A few reports and posts on events today:

• Video of Ned in New Haven is up at the official blog:
  
  


• mcjoan at Daily Kos absolutely tears apart Joe's speech. On Lieberman's characterization of Lamont's position on Iraq:
  

  Lie. Lamont backs the Kerry-Feingold approach, which in no way calls for an immediate withdrawal of troops, but a phased withdrawal to be completed by July of next year. Lamont has also said he would work within the Democratic party to find consensus if a longer-term phased withdrawal was more favored.

  
  And on Rumsfeld:
  

  Here we go again with Rummy. Let's revisit a bit: in October 2003, when he was running for President, Joe said he'd dump Rummy if he were president. In May 2004, it was an unthinkable idea that would embolden the terrorists:
  
  [I]t is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war. . . . Secretary Rumsfeld's removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's presence in Iraq.
  
  Today, Rummy has to go. Gee! What a surprise to hear that from Joe during a tough election!



• Jane at FDL notes that Sen. Lieberman took zero responsibility for any mistaken judgement in the wake of the release of the NIE, and attacked the position of 13 of his former Democratic colleagues - including Sen. Inouye (D-HI) and Sen. Boxer (D-CA), who both campaigned for him:
  

  And this is what he says about people who support this bill:
  
  This is a plan for giving up in Iraq. For giving up on Iraq’s hopes forbecoming free and independent. And for giving up Iraq to the sectarian militias, to the terrorists, and to the Iranians and Syrians who wouldexploit the resulting chaos.
  
  Let me explain why his plan is not just a bad idea, but a formula for defeat and disaster.
  
  Yes Joe, do please give us the benefit of your experience and wisdom, your superior judgment. You’ve been right about so much up to now.



• BranfordBoy at MLN was in New Haven:
  

  There was nothing surprising for those who have been paying attention all along (so, perhaps, there was something surprising for some in the media), but what struck me was how well Lamont has mastered the details. He seems far more in command of chapter and verse on what's been going down in the debate about Iraq than Lieberman himself. (Of course, in Joe's defense, it should be noted that he's had more important things to do than actually participate in Senate discussions about the war and represent the people of Connecticut.) Lamont's able to cite specific time frames in which this general said that, when most of us can barely remember what they did last week. Clearly, he's done his homework and feels comfortable with the material....
  
  When it was over, I asked one reporter how Lamont compared with Lieberman in terms of his openess and willingness to answer questions. "Completely different," she said, "Lieberman just runs."
  
  Of course, none of that will get reported.



• As was Paul Bass, who describes a similar scene:
  

  In the course of the speech, Lieberman sought to turn a liability into a strength by invoking the National Intelligence Estimate -- and cast it as a rebuke of Lamont, not of him. He folded the point into a question on which he and Lamont disagree: whether the U.S. should set a deadline for withdrawing forces....
  
  The nine months question, and the deadline question, followed Lamont to the Wall Street sidewalk outside Naples. He continued saying that nine months wasn't the issue, that Lieberman had mischaracterized that bill. And he sought to shift the spin on the day's news. "Joe Lieberman has been consistently wrong on the war in Iraq for three and a half years," he said. "Now we have a mess on our hands. It is time to change course."



• The AP was also there:
  

  Lamont and other Democrats have seized on the National Intelligence Estimate as proof the Bush administration and supporters such as Lieberman have blundered on the war.
  
  "I think just staying the course, trying to make a military statement there is just making the situation worse for the last 3 1/2 years," Lamont said at a campaign stop Monday in New Haven. "He wants more of the same. There are an awful lot of generals, and people in the intelligence community, that are agreeing with us."

The Cheney-Lieberman tag team was 100% on message today.

Cheney today:

Cheney in particular attacked Democrats for turning their backs on Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, now running as an independent after losing his state's Democratic primary in August to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont....

"For the sake of our security, this nation must reject any strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies,"

Lieberman today:

The truth is, Lamont’s plan is not a plan for changing course. This is a plan for giving up in Iraq....

...his plan is not just a bad idea, but a formula for defeat and disaster.

Shorter Joe:

"Things were said, mistakes were made. Let's end this madness and get on with our lives."

More choice bits from Sen. Lieberman's speech, as prepared for delivery:

On accountability being a "luxury" we can't afford:

But the fact is, as vexing and painful as this situation is today, we don't have the luxury of playing "what if" games with the past. As Churchill said when some of his supporters wanted to focus on investigating the actions of his predecessor, "if the present tries to sit in judgment of the past, it will lose the future."

On the Democratic party "giving up" on Iraq:

The truth is, Lamont's plan is not a plan for changing course. This is a plan for giving up in Iraq. For giving up on Iraq's hopes for becoming free and independent. And for giving up Iraq to the sectarian militias, to the terrorists, and to the Iranians and Syrians who would exploit the resulting chaos.

But, as usual, it looks like Sen. Lieberman is going to address the latter, not his own lack of the former, while ignoring the National Intelligence Estimate in his remarks today:

"We have to realize that reasonable people can disagree on this difficult question, and that does not make you a terrorist sympathizer, on the one hand, or a warmonger, on the other."

In the end, it doesn't matter what names people call each other (although Sen. Lieberman has called Ned Lamont a terrorist enabler, if not a "terrorist sympathizer"). Or what motives people may have, or accuse their opponents of having. Such talk only obscures meaningful debate on an issue of paramount importance for our nation and the world.

What matters is whether you were right or wrong. And whether you are right or wrong.

Sen. Lieberman was wrong at the beginning. He continued to be wrong for the past four years.

And as the National Intelligence Estimate proves, Democrats like Ned Lamont are right, while Bush-Cheney apologists like Sen. Lieberman are still wrong.

More from Greg Sargent:

In his big speech today at 11:45 A.M. about Iraq, it looks as if Joe Lieberman is going to characterize Ned Lamont's plan for Iraq as favoring "immediate withdrawal" -- even though that's not Lamont's position. The Associated Press reports: "The Lamont plan for immediate withdrawal and an arbitrary deadline is doomed to fail and weaken our security," Lieberman's speech reads. But Lamont doesn't favor immediate withdrawal: He actually favors the Kerry-Feingold amendment, which calls for phased withdrawal to be substantially completed by July 1, 2007. Lamont's also said he'd support the plan for longer-term phased withdrawal favored by most Dems if that's what party consensus dictated.

• The Courant leads with the bombshell NIE report and its effect on the campaign, including Lieberman's "major" speech today:
  

  Lieberman is expected to call for a change in Iraq policy, though how was unclear Sunday night....
  
  "This report proves that Ned Lamont's comments in his national security speech were right on the mark," said Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager. "I don't know how Sen. Lieberman can successfully make the case that he is the right choice to get us out of this mess, when he has gotten everything wrong up to his point."
  
  In a 20-minute speech at Yale Law School on Sept. 13, Lamont asserted that the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq had alienated allies and the Arab world and diverted resources from the war on terror, whether at home or in pursuit of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
  
  "Today, America is weaker, not stronger. We have sacrificed our daughters and sons and our treasure in a war we didn't have to fight," Lamont said. "We have ignored the real threats and security needs in the war we should be fighting, the one against the terrorists."



• The Times prefers to write about the fact that the campaign has recently focused on specific domestic issues:
  

  “I’m in this race because I think it’s time we start investing in the United States of America again,” he told the Hamden crowd, alluding to the war in Iraq as a symbol of “bad choices.”
  
  The friendly audience, filled with graying voters, rewarded the line with loud applause. Then, their questions came quickly and precisely:
  
  Would he oppose privatization of Social Security? Absolutely.
  
  Does he support gun control? Yes.
  
  Should President Bush be impeached? No.
  
  And does he favor term limits?
  
  “Eighteen years seems just about the right amount of time to me,” he said, generating laughter with the obvious reference to his opponent’s three-term tenure in the Senate.



• The Greenwich Time was at the Greenwich DTC Picnic, where Ned joined other major party officials and candidates and more than 200 attendees at what was a very energized gathering:
  

  DTC Chairman Jim Himes said local party members are excited.
  
  "We're feeling great. The wind is at our backs and the Republicans don't know whether they're coming or going," Himes said during an interview as Greenwich Democrats munched hamburgers, hot dogs and salads under tri-color streamers and balloons.

  
  The Lamont campaign has energized the party and is working to help the Democratic congressional candidates. Sen. Lieberman, while says he is merely a "noncombatant," is the de-facto GOP candidate and is working against them.


• Maia Szalavitz at the Huffington Post promises more on Lieberman fundraiser Mel Sembler in the coming days, and links to this post from February on Joe's friend and Hundred-Thousand-Dollar Man:
  

  An ACLU official once called Straight a "brutal" "concentration camp for throwaway kids." Sembler later remarked to a business magazine that the ACLU opposition, "just shows that we have been doing things right."
  
  Is it any wonder that people who support this kind of treatment for our children wouldn't think twice about torture for terrorist suspects?



• A diarist at Kos previews a possible Lieberman retort to Ned's letter:
  

  3. While I of course greatly respect any input from the 16 major intelligence agencies in the U.S. government, I feel that for a true understanding of the subtle complexities of our policies in Iraq and indeed the Middle East in general, you have to consult Glenn Beck.
  
  4. I think all Americans are sick and tired of the nasty, rancorous politics of personal destruction typified by Ned Lamont's disgusting savaging of my reputation through the underhanded, thuggish tactic of recklessly injecting facts into this campaign. Shame on you, Ned. Shame on you.
  
  5. Yes, we screwed up in Iraq. But thanks to my efforts to reach across the aisle to our colleagues in the majority party, we screwed up on a bi-partisan basis. Frankly, I'm proud of that.
  
  6. While it is true I missed half the Senate votes on Iraq, it is typical of Ned Lamont's hypocrisy that he never mentions how during his years as a selectman in Greenwich, he didn't cast ANY votes on Iraq. Not ONE.
  
  7. Actually, when you think about it, the report tying our actions in Iraq to an increase in terrorist activity proves my point -- there IS a link between the war in Iraq and the threat of terrorism. It's just a different link than the one I was talking about, that's all.

Sen. Lieberman likes to use this term a lot these days.

When, exactly, has partisanship "paralyzed" our federal government recently?

One party is in firm control of all three branches, and pretty much does as it chooses.

Or "How Real Men Handle Losing" - Part IV in a continuing series (I, II, III).

Rep. Ed Case (D-HI), after losing his primary to Sen. Akaka (D-HI) last night:

"I have to tell you that this loss is my responsibility. The decisions were mine to run and the responsibility and the result is mine," he said.

He vowed to support Akaka and the rest of Hawaii's congressional delegation as he finishes his term in the House.

"He won. I lost. That's democracy and we need to get on with it," Case said.

Akaka said that Case's challenge united the party.

"This has brought our party together, not just our party, this brought Hawaii together," Akaka said.

Atrios thinks he's going to double down:

Cowardly Joe Lieberman is giving his big "Iraq speech" on Monday. My bet is he out-Bushes Bush on the IRAQ IRAQ TERRA TERRA BINLADENSADDAMOISLAMONAZI FREEDOM IRAQ IRAQ TERRA TERRA rhetoric.

But DemFromCT states the obvious, that "stay the course" has been a disaster:

John Abizaid says no troops are coming come. Maliki visits Iran and setting up a Hezbollah-in-Baghdad food distribution program. The National Guard is needed to fix the broken army (i.e., there aren't more troops). Iraqi troops not only have divided loyalties, they're not competent....

That security crackdown, aka the "must-win" Battle of Baghdad, all part of the on-going Iraqi civil war, isn't going so well either. How Republicans think this is going to stay out of the news between now and November is beyond me. But whether redeployment (the Murtha plan) is embraced by all Democrats or not, "stay the course" is a disaster that is only creating more terrorists and making us less safe.

Can Joe really afford to tie himself closer to Bush-Cheney on Iraq? Conversely, if he's counting on Republican voters in November - and more importantly, Republican fundraisers - can he afford to make any meaningful break with Bush-Cheney?

My bet is it will be neither of the above. More mushy meaningless equivocation, the same we've heard all campaign. Perhaps some attacks on his opponent's Iraq policy (you know, the same policy shared by many Republicans and the entire Democratic party). Certainly no meaningful call for accountability. Perhaps another call for Rummy's head - or some other rhetoric in support of which he will never actually do anything - in an attempt to make a headline or two.

In other words, another "major" speech that will turn out to be anything but.

Whether it matters or not (and it won't), what do you think he'll say tomorrow? Open thread.

• An extensive article in the Connecticut Post today explores the herd of largely Republican D.C. lobbyists who have been racing to Sen. Lieberman and throwing large amounts of cash at him:
  

  Meanwhile, Lieberman has taken in more than $1.4 million from PACs and more than $500,000 from individuals living within an hour driving distance of the U.S. Capitol, who each contributed at least $200...
  
  In February, two prominent Washington Republican lobbyists, Craig Fuller and H.P. Goldfield, hosted a fund-raising dinner for Lieberman that raised eyebrows after conservative political columnist Robert Novak reported on the event....
  
  Lieberman plans to tap his Beltway sources again on Tuesday at a fund-raising event off Capitol Hill....
  
  Lieberman raised more than $8.9 million by the end of June, drawing substantial support from the legal profession, securities and investment industry, real estate, health professionals and insurance companies.
  
  His top corporate contributors were Lehman Brothers, United Technologies, Purdue Pharma, Aetna, UBS AG, Hartford Financial Services, Irell & Manella, Citigroup, Sempra Energy and Guardsmark, according to opensecrets.org, a non-partisan campaign finance watchdog group.

  
  "People, not politics?" These are Joe's "people": Republican fundraisers. Republican lobbyists. The Chairman of Scooter Libby's defense fund. People with no interest in holding President Bush or his administration accountable on Iraq.


• Robert Novak echoes this storyline in his column this weekend:
  

  GOP for Lieberman
  
  Republican money is starting to pour into Connecticut for Democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman, running as an independent against multimillionaire anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, the Democrat nominee.
  
  Private commitments to Lieberman by Republican contributors coincided with announcement of a Nov. 1 fundraiser at the Manhattan townhouse of Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York. Co-chairing the event is another New York Republican, former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato. Lieberman has pledged to remain in the Senate Democrat caucus even if elected as an independent.

  
  So who have these "private commitments" come from? Anyway, I'm sure they're not "significant" amounts. Paging Dan Gerstein...


• Dan Balz in the Washington Post writes about senior Democrats now seriously worrying that Sen. Lieberman's do-over campaign will cost the party some or all of their House pickup opportunities in Connecticut:
  

  Not all the movement is related to the GOP political offensive. In Connecticut, the nasty Senate race between insurgent Democratic nominee Ned Lamont against Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is now running as an independent after losing the primary, appears to have spilled over on the three critically important House races in the state.
  
  Lieberman has been leading Lamont in the polls, thanks to Republican and independent support, and key Democrats say they are increasingly worried about the party's prospects of carrying the GOP districts held now by Reps. Johnson, Chris Shays and Rob Simmons.



• Editor and Publisher notes today's Washington Post endorsement of Sen. Lieberman (he has a lot of friends in D.C., doesn't he?) is at odds with what the paper is reporting today on their front page. But what else is new:
  

  The Washington Post's editorial page endorsed Sen. Joe Lieberman for re-election in his third-party Connecticut U.S. Senate race on Sunday, saying that even though he lost the Democratic primary -- and Republican leaders are now backing him -- his victory in November would still be the best thing for his party.
  
  The Post, like Lieberman, is a strong backer of the Iraq war. Lieberman lost to an antiwar candidate, Ned Lamont....
  
  Just as the Post editorial page was endorsing the pro-war candidate in Connecticut, the paper's front page carried a report that painted the war in the worst possible light. It opened, "The war in Iraq has become the primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers are increasing faster than the United States and its allies are eliminating the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.



• The New York Times leads with the NIE story, too:
  

  A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
  
  The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document....
  
  The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

  
  Who was responsible for this egregious strategic error? And what do we do to make sure nothing like this ever happens again? This is why talking about how we've got to this point is important. Even if Sen. Lieberman thinks it's not. Joe's "people, not politics" (i.e. Dick Cheney, Mel Sembler, Karl Rove) have zero interest in any candidate they support calling for accountability on Iraq. And they know they're supporting a candidate in Connecticut who won't do so.