One might give the benefit of the doubt to Lieberman in the latest flap. After all, Congressional collegiality might lead him to put his vaunted "bipartisanship" over the the need for accountability by a leadership that clearly knew about and chose to cover up scadalous behavior by one of its members. You could say that he was erring on the side of caution in wanting to wait until more information was out before condemning that leadership. Or you could say he was playing his own brand of politics by scolding Democrats for pointing out that it was the Republican leadership who let this happen on their own watch.
But there are bigger fish to fry with Joe, and more important questions that need to be asked of him than does he think Dennis Hastert should resign. His answers to that questions are indeed informative of his general view of "bipartisanship," but we need answers to more important questions. Those questions revolve around the last five years in which he has been lead cheerleader for Bush and for the Iraq Debacle.
Joe has painted himself into a corner and remains stubbornly, dangerously committed to remaining there. Oh sure, he'll occasionally let out a bleat about how he's "always" expressed "concerns" about the conduct of the war. But there's a reason why "The Kiss" is the lasting emblem of this race. Because Joe provided this administration the cover of "bipartisan" support for the conduct of this war.
No one can explain that better than General Clark:
The former supreme allied commander of NATO in the 1990s, when the U.S. helped stop the genocide in the Balkans, told the students the Iraq war policies of President Bush and U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman have put America "in real danger."
"If you just add up the scorecard of where we are; we are not winning the war on terror," said Clark, who was also a Democratic candidate for president in 2004 and could be again in 2008.
Clark said there are twice as many terrorists now as there were on 9/11; North Korea and Iran are increasing threats and U.S. Armed Forces are exhausted and bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"That's not a prescription for victory. It is a prescription for failure," he said. "George Bush has said stay the course. How can you stay the course when you are in a ditch?"
While placing most of the blame on Bush, Clark said Lieberman consistently helped the president.
"Joe Lieberman has been part of that ditch. The truth is he didn't exactly control the steering wheel, but he was sort of supporting the elbow of the guy who drove us into he ditch," he said.
Now that he has helped get us into the ditch, and is advocating that he has to be returned to Washington to keep us there, the critical questions have to be asked. Does he still believe, as he said just 10 months ago that by questioning the conduct of this war, Democrats "undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril"? Does he still believe, as he said 10 months ago, that we have "a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq"? Does he believe that plan has evolved, has changed in response to circumstances, as he said 10 months ago?
What's more, if re-elected, will he use his critical position on the committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to finally provide some of the necessary oversight as to what's gone so drastically wrong in these past five years? Or will he continue to be the Rubber Stamp that brought us inaction after Hurricane Katrina, in the form of the unopposed nomination of the woefully unqualified Michael Brown? The Rubber Stamp that provides "bipartisan" cover on an Iraq War that has spun wildly out of control? The Rubber Stamp that looks the other way when the intelligence community is telling us that the Iraq War has made the world more dangerous?
It's a strange brand of bipartisanship that Joe likes to practice. Lieberman hasn't used his position as the "friendly Democrat" in the Bush administration to negotiate for more accountability by the administration, for and end to the stream of lies we've been fed about the war, the intelligence behind it, and the lack of a plan for going forward.
I've said before that bipartisanship only works when both sides negotiate, when both sides compromise. Joe has proven that he's indeed not a bipartisan. He's not attempting to negotiate anything with this administration. He's the king of capitulation. Or, at heart, a Republican.