I want to say upfront that I have generally been a Joe Lieberman supporter, although I disagree with his stance on the war, and I disagree with his most recent comment about Democrats undermining the president. However, I do not read it in the same way that it has been discussed here. More importantly, it is (not) suprising that nowhere on this site has the quote been placed in context. See below for more.
Here is the complete quote:
It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril. It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war.
While I disagree with Lieberman's stance, I don't read it as him saying "disagreeing with Bush is wrong in times of war." Disagreeing with the president in times of war
does undermine the president's credibility and it can put us in peril. However, sometimes that's necessary if the commander-in-chief is wrong. It is necessary here. While I don't believe that Lieberman believes the president is wrong here, he isn't red lighting criticism of the president. He is suggesting thoughtful criticism of the president.
More importantly, as Lieberman notes, Republicans cannot expect Democrats to put on a happy face. They must work with Democrats if they expect to have any success in this war. According to Lieberman, Republicans who expect Democrats to shut up are actually infringing upon the safety of the troops. Success can only happen when Republicans are willing to work with Democrats to find a solution to the war.
As I have continued to discover, Lieberman is more nuanced than how he is presented on this site. Having said that, this is consistently one of his problems because his quotes can be taken out of context to sound more forceful than they actually are. The same can be said of Howard Dean. I believe Lieberman and Dean to be smart individuals, but they are not the masters of language in a soundbite society in the way that Reid, Bill Clinton or Gephardt have been.
This isn't a bash-Lieberman diary. Far from it. This is a reflection of the second half of the quote - and a question: why has the front page (or any diary) failed to quote the second part of the quote? What are Kos, Armando, and anti-Lieberman posters afraid of?