Nonsense and Sensibility - New York Times
The New York Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 11, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Nonsense and Sensibility
By
PAUL KRUGMAN

After Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut, I saw a number of commentaries
describing Joe Lieberman not just as a "centrist" - a word that has come to
mean
"someone who makes excuses for the Bush administration" - but as "sensible."
But on what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered sensible?

Take a look at Thomas Ricks's "Fiasco," the best account yet of how the U.S.
occupation of Iraq was mismanaged. The prime villain in that book is Donald
Rumsfeld, whose delusional thinking and penchant for power games undermined
whatever chances for success the United States might have had. Then read Mr.
Lieberman's May 2004 op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, "Let Us Have
Faith," in which he urged Mr. Rumsfeld not to resign over the Abu Ghraib
scandal,
because his removal "would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's
presence in Iraq."

And that's just one example of Mr. Lieberman's bad judgment. He has been
wrong at every step of the march into the Iraq quagmire - all the while
accusing
anyone who disagreed with him of endangering national security. Again, on
what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered "sensible"? But I know the
answer:
on Planet Beltway.

Many of those lamenting Mr. Lieberman's defeat claim that they fear a
takeover of our political parties by extremists. But if political
polarization were
really their main concern, they'd be as exercised about the primary
challenge from the right facing Lincoln Chafee as they are about Mr.
Lieberman's woes.
In fact, however, the sound of national commentary on the Rhode Island race
is that of crickets chirping.

So what's really behind claims that Mr. Lieberman is sensible - and that
those who voted against him aren't? It's the fact that many Washington
insiders
suffer from the same character flaw that caused Mr. Lieberman to lose
Tuesday's primary: an inability to admit mistakes.

Imagine yourself as a politician or pundit who was gung-ho about invading
Iraq, and who ridiculed those who warned that the case for war was weak and
that
the invasion's aftermath could easily turn ugly. Worse yet, imagine yourself
as someone who remained in denial long after it all went wrong, disparaging
critics as defeatists. Now denial is no longer an option; the neocon fantasy
has turned into a nightmare of fire and blood. What do you do?

You could admit your error and move on - and some have. But all too many
Iraq hawks have chosen, instead, to cover their tracks by trashing the war's
critics.

They say: Pay no attention to the fact that I was wrong and the critics have
been completely vindicated by events - I'm "sensible," while those people
are
crazy extremists. And besides, criticizing any aspect of the war encourages
the terrorists.

That's what Joe Lieberman said, and it's what his defenders are saying now.

Now, it takes a really vivid imagination to see Mr. Lieberman's rejection as
the work of extremists. I know that some commentators believe that anyone
who
thinks the Iraq war was a mistake is a flag-burning hippie who hates
America. But if that's true, about 60 percent of Americans hate America. The
reality
is that Ned Lamont and those who voted for him are, as The New York Times
editorial page put it, "irate moderates," whose views are in accord with
those
of most Americans and the vast majority of Democrats.

But in his non-concession speech, Mr. Lieberman described Mr. Lamont as
representative of a political tendency in which "every disagreement is
considered
disloyal" - a statement of remarkable chutzpah from someone who famously
warned Democrats that "we undermine the president's credibility at our
nation's
peril."

The question now is how deep into the gutter Mr. Lieberman's ego will drag
him.

There's an overwhelming consensus among national security experts that the
war in Iraq has undermined, not strengthened, the fight against terrorism.
Yet
yesterday Mr. Lieberman, sounding just like Dick Cheney - and acting as a
propaganda tool for Republicans trying to Swift-boat the party of which he
still
claims to be a member - suggested that the changes in Iraq policy that Mr.
Lamont wants would be "taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who
wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England."

In other words, not only isn't Mr. Lieberman sensible, he may be beyond
redemption.

Posted by Miriam V.