That depends on how you define the Gulf War, which I was a particpant in, where Saddam aimed at taking over Kuwaiti & Saudi oilfields to wage economic war on us.

The Gulf War, whether you supported it or not, was an elective war. As was our intervention in Somalia in the early 90's. As was our intervention in Serbia in the late 90's. None of those countries attacked the U.S., and none of those countries posed a significant threat to the security of the U.S.

If you supported any of those endeavors, that's certainly your right. But don't try to argue that those interventions were anything other than what they really were–elective wars.

With regards to the Gulf War, the United States didn't own the oilfields in Kuwait, so any attempt to argue that Hussein's taking over of the oilfields in Kuwait constituted waging war (economic or otherwise) is just silly.

The U.S.'s 40+ year old embargo on Cuba has certainly had negative repurcusions on Cuba's economy. Does that mean that the U.S. has waged war against Cuba?

The opposition to the Iraq War has come from opposition to GWB's admittedly clumsy statecraft and sending in a second-rate houseboy to Rumsfeld & Cheney—L. Paul Bremer—who had zero expertise in the region.

I disagree.

Indeed some of the opposition to the Iraq War has come from the Bush administration's handling of it, and some of the opposition has come from partisan Democrats who would oppose Bush no matter what he did. But for many Americans, opposition to the war rests on general principle–that principle being that you don't attack another country that has not attacked your country or poses no significant threat to the security of your country.

You can't characterize opposition to the war as some kind of leftwing phenomenon when some of the most ardent criticism of the war comes from people like Republican Congressman Ron Paul, paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan, paleolibertarians such as Lew Rockwell, and the Libertarian Party.

That depends on how you define the Gulf War, which I was a particpant in, where Saddam aimed at taking over Kuwaiti & Saudi oilfields to wage economic war on us. That was actually an attack on us, geopolitically speaking, that was obviated by good diplomacy by GHWB & a limited incursion. Saddam with WMD was considered a significant threat to us—-and even Saddam's generals thought he had them & was ready to use them against allies of the US in the region.

In the end, the entire Iraq War project might have positive results, despite the screeching of political ideologists and purists who basically always are on the sidelines. A lot of libertarian loons are against the war simply because they are isolationists—you mentioned quite a few in your laundry list of non-lefties.

The opposition to the Iraq War has come from opposition to GWB's admittedly clumsy statecraft and sending in a second-rate houseboy to Rumsfeld & Cheney—L. Paul Bremer—who had zero expertise in the region. The military execution was almost as faultless as these things get. The follow-up was doomed as soon as Bremer stopped Zal Khalilzad, a multilingual regional expert, from being his Co-Adjutor in the Prov Govt, as you would know if you had read Cobra II. Rumsfeld sent Arabist Garner & his hundred-man regional team packing because he wanted “fresh ideas.” And two hundred man-years of preparation were jettisoned by this inside-the-Beltway Mandarin just like that. At the end of the day, it was GWB's fault for hands-off executive oversight—-leaving Cheney to mind the Iraqi store.

But anyone who read Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm knows that there were more reasons than just WMD to invade Iraq. The UN was about to relax all sanctions in its usual feckless incompetent brain-dead fashion & and after 17 UNSC resolutions, the whole Iraqi mess was going to heat up again.

The left wanted to punish GWB for winning the 2000 election and geopolitical reasons & facts on the ground were a small part of what the opposition to the Iraq War was all about. It was about politics, mostly, and getting the WH & Congress back from the Repubs.

nic With 20-20 hindsight, cheap shot artists can all point out mistakes.

Dave,

I was against the Iraq War from the very beginning. Invading a country that had not attacked us and posed no significant threat to us seemed like a bad idea then, and it seems like a bad idea now.

How is it “20-20 hindsight” when I I based my argument on general principle before the war even started?

The insane left has been proven wrong in Iraq & will be proven wrong about Iran.

Are we to understand that Ron Paul, Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, Lew Rockwell, Paul Craig Roberts, Pat Buchanan, Charley Reese, Walter Block, William Lind, Jacob Hornburger, Justin Raimondo, Thomas Di Lorenzo, Thomas Woods, Paul Gottfried, Jude Wanniski, Colonel David Hackworth, and the Pope are all part of “the left”?

This “left versus right” characterization of the war is growing really old, Dave.

Lieberman is activley supporting McCain, the GOP nominee. That's going against the party, I would think.
Lieberman is soliciting suppor for MCcain among unhappy Clinton campers.
I would call that going against the Dem party, as well.

You don't have to be a Lieberman hater to find these activities to be more than a difference of opinion. He is directly trying to undermine the Dem's chances in Nov.
That's not biparttisanship, that's being anti one particular party.

“Since Lieberman , an Independent, in no way represents the Dem party, it doesn't even qualify as bi-partisanship.”
But he caucuses with them, and aside from the war and a few other issues, his voting record largely goes with the Dems.
If you want to mince words, though, then call it non-partisanship.

“Neither was 'pushed out by their parties. McCain still retains all his committee assignments for the GOP. So does Lieverman, in spite of the fact that he resigned from the Dem party.”
I didn't say “pushed out.” I said they feel left out because certain elements criticize them for their sometimes divergent views.

Parties are not homogeneous in the views of all their members and they never have been. You get factions. Look at the Republican primary season. You had the foreign policy, economy, libertarian, and religious wings all represented. I'm not sure of the exact divisions with the Democrats, but I know they're there. Those who support the war, for instance. It doesn't mean they go against the party line on lots of things, like some Lieberman haters would frame him as doing.

The insane left has been proven wrong in Iraq & will be proven wrong about Iran.

Lieberman is largely attacked for having a sane foreign policy view

DLS,

Time and time again, you defend the foreign policy of Lieberman and other war supporters as being “sane”, “logical” and even “patriotic”, yet you never actually make as argument explain what was so good about going to war with Iraq.

Was it really “sane” to drop bombs on Baghdad, a city of more than 5 million people, in order to wage war against a country that had not attacked us and presented no credible threat to the U.S?

Was it really “sane” to spend more than half a trillion dollars to wage war against a country that had not attacked us and presented no credible threat to the U.S?

Was it really “sane” to Lieberman and Bush's “conservative” supporters to engage in the biggest nation-building project since WWII?

Was it really “sane”, during a time in which the U.S. deficit is soaring and American dollar is plunging, to use American taxpayer dollars to continue to subsidize the military defense of Iraq (not to mention the more than 100 other countries in the world that the American taxpayer subsidizes)?

McCain, certainly; Lieberman, unsure, given his against-the-tide record is short (and overly hyped by the hyperventilators).

It wouldn't be surprising if Lieberman became McCain's VP choice. It would siphon off more independents and swing voters, in theory, who are Dem-leaning as despite the complaints from the Left, Lieberman is obviously a Dem and good old “John-Boy” (as someone on a phone call to me called him) often has acted like a Dem (or at least opposed the GOP to put himself in the news).

It's just as likely McCain might find a nice Cabinet role for Lieberman and, in fact, other Dems. Think about his shopping among the Gang of 14 for candidates.

Since Lieberman , an Independent, in no way represents the Dem party, it doesn't even qualify as bi-partisanship.

Neither was 'pushed out by their parties. McCain still retains all his committee assignments for the GOP. So does Lieverman, in spite of the fact that he resigned from the Dem party.
He got a sweet deal, and is using it to the limit, someimes to screw the Dems who have spent years supporitng him.

There's a difference. Iran *** IS *** a terrorist country. We, the USA, are not, despite the lies of vile scum who would have envious and resentful losers in the rest of the world believe it, or dupe fellow travelers of the real terrorist nations feel fake moral superiority.

Ostracized by their respective party's more conservative/liberal elements accordingly due to their maverick views (Middle East foreign policy primary for Lieberman and immigration and torture primary for McCain), I think they feel pretty left out sometimes. I kind of don't see it as bad for McCain since his primary antagonists seem to come from the Michelle Malkin/Rush Limbaugh types, whereas Lieberman seems to have antagonists that include more mainstream liberals (IMO), but they know some of their policies are looked down by their respective parties.

In that atmosphere, it's not surprising that they'd unite together toward their common goals.

Now, I don't exactly agree with the primary issue they are uniting on, but if more politicians from the parties showed the passion for bi-partisanship those two show, this country would be much better for it.

The Kyl-Lieberman bill was stupid. What does name calling accomplish?
Did it scare Iran into submission?
The US has been called a terrorist country so many times, I don't even pay attention anymore. Yet, here we still are, unvanquished.

On the contrary, passing bills like this for the sake of appearing strong and then not being able to do anything to follow up just exposes weakness. Iran must have laughed hearitly all the way to Iraq, as it widens influence there.
Nice going Lieberman., thanks for making the US look ridiculous!

One of the reasons I didn't support Hillary was exactly bacause she does ill-considered things like vote for the Kyl-Lieberman bil, not to mention voting for the Iraq war.

Lieberman has changed from having primary policy concerns into being a fanatic about them, and he doesn't care who pays the price for his fanaticism.