No ties to 9/11, no WMDs and no ties to al Qaeda? Don’t ask Joe Lieberman:

The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

The Democratic Party rejected Bush’s framework for the war on terror — invade a country which had no ties to al Qaeda, no means to harm our nation, and no connection to the attacks of 9/11 — because it was a stupid, counterproductive, and disastrous framework. As a recent Pentagon study stated:

“Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle.”

Why, in the hell should Democrats embrace, as Lieberman urges, a “major debacle?” For the sake of “centrism” and presenting a united front — of stupidity — to our enemies?

Which enemies, by the way, are being increased by the decisions made within Bush’s disastrous framework for the war on terror. The National Intelligence Estimate released in September, 2006 undercut the argument that invading Iraq has made us safer — an argument Lieberman either stupidly or dishonestly continues to implicitly make. Rather, Iraq has made it easier for al Qaeda — the real threat — to recruit and rebuild its networks:

• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Measured in terms of significant terrorist attacks world wide, Bush’s framework for the war on terror has resulted in a geometric expansion in the number of attacks world wide: from 208 such attacks in 2002, to well over 14,000 such attacks in 2006. To paraphrase my late mother, “If Bush jumped off a cliff, you would jump too?”

Perpetuating Bush’s mistakes, and endorsing his catastrophic “framework for the war on terror” only continues to strengthen our enemies, continues to squander our financial resources, and more importantly, continues to erode our military and drain its strength. Losing tens of thousands of killed and maimed in a “major debacle” which enables al Qaeda to cultivate more jihadists, and launch thousands of more attacks is no way to make America safer.

I’ve been largely steering clear of the blogwar between Clintonistas and Obamaites, but this post cries for quick comment. Lambert, in a post ironically titled Stupid Roe argument opines:

I keep hearing the OFB (”Obama Fan Base,” a derogation for those who support Obama) talking point that a key reason to vote for Obama in the general is to safeguard Roe. [ed: through Supreme Court appointments.]

If McCain won — if Satan himself won — Democrats would still have control of the SJC. If Dems really want to safeguard Roe, then make Roe a litmus test for the nominees. Then bork whoever gets sent up ’til McCain — or Satan — gets it and does the right thing.

Of course, that would require the Senate Dems to acquire stones, but that would be bad why?

There are plenty of other reasons to vote for the Democrat in the general, but this is not one.

This is incredibly shortsighted. First of all, if McCain wins the general election, he will be in office for 4, or perhaps 8, years. One-third of the Senate is up for reelection every 2 years. Thus it is within the realm of theoretical possibility that the entire Senate could turn over within McCain’s presidency. While this is extremely unlikely, it is not possible to discount the possibility that within that time frame the Democrats may not control the SJC (Senate Judicial Committee) or the Senate, and may not have veto power over a Supreme Court nominee.

Right now, the Democrats have a narrow majority in the Senate, and though that may be substantially enlarged in the general election, we won’t really know exactly what the numbers will be until after the voting is down. If the supposition is wrong, then it is too late to ask for a do-over and decide that voting for a pro-choice presidential candidate does matter, just as it would be too late if the GOP somehow wrested control of the Senate back during McCain’s presidency.

It goes without saying that relying on the Senate to “bork” any candidate who refuses to pleadge to reaffirm Roe v. Wade is equally myopic. The fact that the Senate has been 100% unsuccessful in controlling judicial appointments in the past ought to be a hint that it may be impossible for it to do so in the future.

Realistically, a more likely scenario if McCain is in office is an appointee who refuses to directly state how he would vote on abortion, who plays lip service to the value of precedent in general and Roe in particular. In other words, you get another Roberts.

There have been only 2 Supreme Court appointments by Democratic Presidents in the last 40 years. Apart from the issue of abortion and the continuing viability of Roe v. Wade, there are many other important issues impacted by the current rightward twist of the Court - like voting rights, for instance.

I’ve met Lambert a few times, and have found him intelligent and earnest. But pretending that the power to make Supreme Court appointments doesn’t matter, when Justice Stevens is 88, Ginsberg is 75 and Breyer is 70 is willful blindness. Villify Obama (and his “fan base”) all you want, but you have to be smarter than this. The consequences of an aging Supreme Court and another 4-8 years of GOP judicial appointments would have a substantial and lasting impact on this country.

Classic image on horkog.

According to Mark Halperin, who writes The Page for Time Magazine, Barack Obama now holds the superdelegate lead over Hilary Clinton.

Net gain: Obama 3, Clinton 0*

–American Federation of Government Employees head John Gage announces for Obama. The union endorses as well.

–New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne tells The Star-Ledger he’s switching from Clinton to Obama. “I’ve really been mulling it over for quite a while.”

–Obama also picks up Oregon super Rep. DeFazio.

–Clinton nabs endorsement of Pennsylvania Rep. Chris Carney

ABC News: Obama takes superdelegate lead for the first time.

*Payne switching takes one super away from Clinton.

While Hillary insists that her campaign has just taken on a little ice, the damage below the waterline is starting to show:

The tide turned against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) on Capitol Hill Wednesday, as even some of her supporters said she should consider ending her White House bid.

Some uncommitted Democratic superdelegates refused to meet with the beleaguered candidate when her campaign approached them in the hope of wooing them. Reps. Brad Miller (N.C.) and Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) said they were invited to meet Clinton but declined to attend.

~~~

But uncommitted superdelegates such as Miller say they now expect Obama to win the nomination.

The sense of inevitability led some Clinton backers to question her continued resistance. One of her most respected supporters, former Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, announced early Wednesday that he was switching his endorsement to Obama and said the time had come to unite the party.

Shift the deck chairs all you want.

From Taylor Marsh, an HRC campaign memo trying to explain away Obama’s strong showing in Indiana:

The fact that Indiana was an open primary – Republicans and independents can vote in the Democratic contest – also augured well for Senator Obama. He has regularly argued that he should be nominated because he “appeal[s] to Republicans and Independents in a way that none of the other nominees can.”

Except for the fact that multiple GOP hacks like Rush Limbaugh specifically urged Indiana Republicans to cross-over and vote for Hillary in order to ratfuck the Democratic party in general and Obama in particular, this is a completely honest assessment by the Clinton campaign.

Obama wins in North Carolina, but trails Clinton in Indiana

“Barack Obama swept to victory in the North Carolina primary on Tuesday but fell behind Hillary Rodham Clinton in Indiana, the last big-delegate prizes left in their long race for the Democratic presidential nomination.”