J. McCutchen

Yea right...I am gonna give the War Party a war chest

Maybe "Turncoat Joe" has a point, considering he'll be behind the Little King all the way into Iran and Syria.

PAY-GO-TO-WAR

Got a nice ring to it....

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

... most importantly, Democrats should favor the War Tax for a very simple reason: It’s the right thing to do.

Are you smoking something?

I just saw in today's paper that Whitebear, MN is axing 26 positions in their "affluent school district" because the voters didn't approve the most recent referendum. That's probably because they're maxed out in housing debt...

Another similar district, further south, also annouced such measures.

As far as I can tell, the US is trying to take Iraq's oil and, in response, the Iraqi people are trying to defend it because they know oil is the base of their economy-- especially since the US invasion decimated their university and health care systems.

And, as you know, the injured soldiers are going to cost up to $660 billion to care for... and isn't that almost 1/12th of our GDP?

If Lieberman was smart, he'd know that it's time to bring our troops home and start looking for a new way to meet our nations energy needs.

BTW: my father used to tell my mother: "you have every dollar spent three different ways before I bring home the check..." It's time to allocate our scarce resources to things with a "peace dividend" instead of things that go "bang!."

Instead, those opposed to the tax would be the ones who are against funding the troops — since they’d be acting against a realistic means of paying for it.

No, people like myself simply want to stop the insanity and bring the troops home because our politicians having been using them as shields to score points.

How many times do the voters have to say: "the emperor is naked!"?

No.

No.

Hell no.

Finally, and most importantly, Democrats should favor the War Tax for a very simple reason: It’s the right thing to do.

If you're shooting yourself in the foot over and over, coming up with a more responsible funding mechanism for the bullets is not the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to stop shooting yourself in the foot.

Lieberman is not proposing a tax to offset the horrible damage to the American economy that the war has already done. That damage would certainly be a good excuse for raising taxes should we get past the war, but it's not earmarking funds for anything other than the national debt and not relevant here. He's looking for funds to extend and intensify the war, when we should be cutting funds off for the war.

So what about the argument that it's good politics, even if it's both bad policy and irrelevant, because it puts the GOP on the spot? Let me get this straight. Either it'd pass, and we'd get the same economic damage as before, but with a longer war. Or it'd fail, and we'd be just where we are now, whining over who's to blame and what measures to pass that might oppose the war. 

And bear in mind that the Democrats just put off debate precisely in order to avoid promising to fund the war. Are you seriously prepared to tell them they got it backward? Brilliant. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

you can go to websites like:

CostOfWar.Com

to see how stupid "funding wars" are.

Here in Minnesota, where school and library budgets are getting sacked-- in the name of taxcuts, we've spent $8 billion on Iraq already...

There are other interesting websites too such as:

• NationalPriorities.Org
• TPMCafe: The Cost of The War, by Pascal Riche

The Wall Street Journal has written several articles under the topic of "The Iraq War Will Bankrupt the US." More specifically, they talk about the cost of maintaining a large standing army and delivering the promised retirement benefits such as health care.

In fact, I remember reading that "retirement benefits will grow to the point of being more than half the pentagon's budget!"

Priorities suck because they make you realize that you have more than one mouth to feed!

Or, in the case of Bush, change feet.

deleted

I know what you're saying and I feel the implications too, but I do think we have to think a little more about what's best for the country (not trying to suggest for one second that you don't feel the same way). If we have come to the point where we can't look our fellow Americans in the eye and say, hey, we are leaving our children, their children and their children with insurmountable debt and we have to do something about that, we're in deep trouble.

I love the sarcasm/cynicism, Mr. Kleefeld. Well done.

But I just can't get past that Lieberman is a liar, a coward, and unashamed to be the country's one note advocate for murder of any Arabs who refuse to cower before us. He is a moral insult.

Precisely on target jhaber.

I smell a further rat: I assume the "War on Terror", for Lieberman, includes every military action of any kind against people of the Islamic persuasion. As thinks stand, if Bush goes to war with Iran, he is going to have to come to Congress and ask for a special appropriation. But if he can pay for the war by drawing down on the new all purpose War on Terror fund, then the only way Congress can cut his funding for Iran is to cut the funding source for everything from humvees to helmets in Iraq.

By bundling the funding, congress loses control over specific purse strings.

I know what you mean. How about a "windfall profit tax on the MANY companies who have profited mightily from this war (otherwise known as war profiteers)?

Really, I know we have all badmouthed Halliburton, Blackwater, Exxon, and many others, but there are MANY MORE who have just been skimming enormous profits at the expense of the regular taxpayer. With a "Publican" Congress we could forget about identifying those who have made unseemly profits from this war, but with the DemocratIC party in charge we have the ability to identify and hold this bunch accountable.

Why should our children and grandchildren be held accountable? They haven't benefitted from this disaster! Why not let those who have pay for it?

Jan Knaus

...who would be most affected by his tax idea, Lieberman replied, "Well, it's mostly for the wealthy. It would be progressive."

Yeah, right, and Dubya says his tax cuts mainly help the middle class. These guys wouldn't know a true statement if it reached up and bit them both in their non-existant hearts. Neither of them has any shame.

Jan Knaus

Exactly. And Lieberman is all about attacking Iran. One purpose of this proposal would be to blur various military actions. The administration has used 9/11 and their War on Terror® to break the law and shove their agenda on America for five years and this further facilitates that scheme.

We invaded Afghanistan in reaction to an attack. It can be called part of an anti-terror campaign in that sense. I’m sure Afghanistan will cost many $billions while Iraq will cost trillions in the end. But the war in Iraq was about regime change and pre-empting a secular, non-jihadist madman who was threatening our security with his scary WMD. It can’t still be sold as a war on terror after the real intelligence has shown that Saddam was an enemy of al Qaeda.

Likewise, any strikes against Iran, who was helping in our War on Terror®, would be incident to their support of the Shiite groups we attacked Iraq to liberate. How can that be twisted into the fight against “Islamic terrorism”?

If this is satire, it is brilliant satire.

I honestly can't tell if he's being serious.  I mean, goodies like this can't be serious, can they?

Democrats should join with Joe Lieberman on the War Tax proposal for both Iraq and the wider War On Terror. It’s good policy and it’s good politics. And if it is accomplished, Joe Lieberman could rightfully claim it as the crowning achievement of his political career.

On the other hand, some of his arguments sound disturbingly serious:

Joe Lieberman’s proposal would shift this around. A surtax earmarked to pay for foreign combat operations — and specifically listed as such on people’s taxes — would remind people that, yes, we do have to give up something for the sake of a worthy cause. It would restore rational decision-making to our defense appropriations and contracting processes by giving every American a stake in how the war is being conducted, and they’d be able to see on paper how much they’re paying.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the mystery.

It seems to me that paying an earmarked tax to support a war we do not believe in is precisely backwards. I wish there was a way to pay my taxes and withhold all funds that support the war, or, just as good, have the option of diverting my taxes to one of my favored agencies: NIH, National Park Service, etc.

PS We don't have to get all snarky with young Eric.
I disagree with his idea but he is, based on all his previous posts, definitely a good guy. We need to chill.
Except when dealing with some of these lurking fascists of which Eric aint one.

You can't honestly call for peace-dividend type policy (tax cuts) when there isn't any peace.

Eric, I think you--and likely Lieberman--get a little mixed up here. If we can't have tax cuts and a war at the same time, then we should either get rid of the tax cuts or get rid of the war. Recognizing that we can't have tax cuts and a war, you suggest instead that we have an unrelated tax increase. Why not just get rid of the tax cuts?

Yes! Now you're talkin!

Not everything is a slippery slope. The citizens of this country are intelligent and thoughtful, and moreover, we have the ability to write a law such that it grants one the right to opt out of some taxes and not others. I personally don't think it's a great idea--we're all in this together after all--but that doesn't mean that it's not possible.

Fair enough. 

I can look at the proposal in a serious way.  The problem, from my perspective, is that the tax is incompatible with my basic position on Iraq: de-fund the war and get out. 

I think we can agree that this tax isn't about "the war on terror."  Non-Iraq/Afganistan military expenditures are covered in the normal Pentagon budget.  So this tax is about the wars and the wars alone. 

I want the war in Iraq to stop.  So why would I support a funding mechanism that would replace the discretion of Congress with a tax scheme that would require a fillibuster to repeal?  Wouldn't this make the war that much more difficult to de-fund and thefore end? 

Look, I understand how this is principled position for a dedicated war hawk like Lieberman.  I can even appreciate the pay-as-you-go sentiment.  But I can't agree with the substance of the proposal, since it would deepen and prolong the conflict.  As we speak, America is spending blood and treasure on a lost and unwinnable war at an incredible rate.  Every dollar spent on such an effort is, by definition, a waste.  With that in mind, the war is the primary problem.  Issues of funding, taxes, and the American public's psychic commitment to the war on terror are strictly secondary. 

Someone please tell me whether the fact is that the US spends more than the next 10 largest war spenders combined or if it is in fact that we spend more than the rest of the world combined.

Our "defense" budget is already too big. Our commitments are more than we can afford.

If other allied nations see dangers let them send troops and money.

I feel sorry for Lieberman. There is no amount of money that will make him feel safe.

The fair thing would have been for the GOP to pass a tax prior to the invasion of Iraq. Or how about just not cutting them. We could simply allow the Bush cuts to expire.

I join with others here that a War Tax would validate the GWOT, which I oppose as a concept.

I would counter Lieberman's proposal with one to reinstitute the draft.  If the sacrifice is to be "shared" that is the only way to do it.  And unlike during Vietnam the rich kids, like Bush was, won't have the opportunity to hide in the National Guard.  That is when we'd see the rubber hit the road.  No way would I ever support a tax intended to continue to allow an illegitimate war to be waged...and make it possible for more illegitimate wars to be waged in the future.

NO TO ANY PROPOSED "WAR TAX"!!!!!  TIME TO BRING OUR MEN AND WOMEN HOME INSTEAD!!!!

It's insane that Bush has been cutting taxes for the well off at the same time as he's committing the country to armed conflict, whether in Iraq or the more worthy struggles against Al Qaeda around the world (That pursuit is a noble one; The torture and warrantless wiretapping are obviously a different story.)

Eric- I worry about your statement above mainly because "we the people" have not been receiving good intelligence about the genuine threats to us both here and abroad. If we receive honest objective intelligence then resources should flow to these genuine threats.Then and only then would I support a "real threat" tax.

Be Well,

Dr. Rick Lippin

right, its the worst of all possible worlds! "yes, well, I said I would oppose the war, but instead it will escalate, and now it costs you more directly as well! don't thank me all at once!"

Funding the war with more taxes will only prolong it. George Dubya is playing chicken with that piece of paper called the US dollar. The pain of budget cuts at home that are in the pipeline now to fund this lost war may help to end it.

Republicans would only support such a war tax if a substantial portion comes back to them through defense related kickbacks. They would get the money, Democrats would get swiftboated down the 'big government' tax and spend river.

I like this idea. Sort of like how a college basketball play loses a year of eligibility if he transfers schools. I say make 'em sit out a year!

There's no such thing as the "war on terror." It's a Republican talking point that confuses many different things, some of which are wise and some of which are foolish.

There is the war in Afghanistan, which we had little choice but to fight, due to the fact that conditions of near-anarchy in that country allowed terrorists to plot attacks on American soil from there.

There is the war in Iraq, which was fought because of George W. Bush's psychological problems and the delusional fantasies of the neoconservatives. Since "victory" is impossible to achieve here, and probably impossible even to define, we should leave Iraq as soon as possible.

Then there is the coordinated efforts among various governments to curtail violent extremism and track down and arrest terrorist suspects. This is simply international law enforcement. Confusing standard law enforcement with "war" is nearly always a bad idea, generally leading to a breakdown in civil liberties. It isn't particularly effective, either. We need to treat terrorism primarily as a law-enforcement issue. And, most of all, we need to chill out, and take these risks in perspective. On 9/11/2001, al-Qaeda managed to kill almost as many Americans as died in car crashes that same month. They never accomplished such a feat in the First World before, and haven't done so since. And we're shaking in fear of these pissants? We are simply not dealing with a threat on the magnitude of Nazi Germany or the USSR, and we still won't be doing so even if Iran does manage to get a couple of crude nuclear devices (which would be subject to the de facto standard rules of deterrence and MAD).

Finally, our military is far too large and expensive. Of course, the men and women who have put their lives on the line for our country deserve the benefits they've been promised; in fact, I would advocate increasing veterans' benefits substantially. But a large portion of "military" spending is really just disguised corporate welfare. We buy expensive equipment not because it is needed, but because it is produced by politically-connected manufacturers. Furthermore, as the Framers understood, a large standing army is an attractive nuisance to politicians, who will often figure out a way to use it for something in order to increase their popularity or make a name for themselves. I'd like to see a line-by-line audit of the entire military budget - call it "Operation Light of Day" - and any unnecessary spending should be trimmed. We need a robust nuclear deterrent, we need a reasonable homeland protection force, and we need a Navy to keep the sea lanes open. Anything beyond that is just letting politicians play soldier with people's lives.

Or, why not just tax the rich for the War on Iraq and not the War on Terror? Hey, fat cats, when the war is over (permanent bases and all), you get a refund!

....and b) if it looked like this would pass the war would be over in six months.

Hoppy in Sacramento

It's insane that Bush has been cutting taxes for the well off at the same time as he's committing the country to armed conflict, whether in Iraq or the more worthy struggles against Al Qaeda around the world (That pursuit is a noble one; The torture and warrantless wiretapping are obviously a different story.)

It is insane. The tax cuts for the wealthy were bad policy even without the war, and Democrats should support restoring those lost revenues them anyway. The cuts are doubly bad policy given the Iraq war. But for heaven's sake, let's not restore those revenues just for the sake of throwing them down Bush's Iraqi money pit! As for the War on Terror, the legit and worthwhile needs of that war are actually quite modest, and can probably be funded out of current revenues, once we stop throwing money away in Iraq - or possibly soon Iran.

Lieberman is a raving, Muslim-hating fanatic who is making a play for a permanent funding source for his crazed Middle East agenda. He's counting on confused progressives to be so dazzled by the allure of taxing someone that they will haplessly hand him and his best buddies John McCain and George Bush a shiny new war chest.

In case you didn't notice, Democrats were elected last fall to end the war, not to reform its finances! Stay focussed. Democrats didn't vote for Lieberman in Connecticut - Independents and Republicans did.

You can't honestly call for peace-dividend type policy (tax cuts) when there isn't any peace. If a hawk like Lieberman is being intellectually honest about this, then he should be backed up on it. It would be the first present-tense tax increase of the Bush years, as opposed to the tax increases being willed to future generations through his budget deficits.

It would be a tax increase for the wrong thing! If some Senator said he wanted to tax the rich so that we could more fully and reliably fund abortion clinic bombers, exterminate illegal aliens or burn all extant copies of On the Origin of Species, would you get all soft and excited about the Senator's home-run hitting "intellectual honesty" and noble progressive taxation scheme?

Now if Lieberman says he wants to tax the rich so we can bring our troops home from Iraq, pay for their benefits, dismantle the Middle East war machine, pay reperations to Iraq for illegally invading their country, fund a triple-strength regional diplomatic mission, close Gitmo and repatriate maybe I'll listen. But of course that's not going to happen.

Eric might very well be one of the good guys, MJ, but how many hug and kiss-fests does Eric have to witness among Lieberman, McCain and Bush to realize that Lieberman isn't just an occasionally wayward soul. He's one of them - one of the bad guys. He's a full-bore, flat-out, psychotic neo-crazy: one of blood-soaked boob patrol who landed us in this mess; a man who has been zealous defender of whole hog, Woolsey-style WWIII Islamo-mono-mania from the get go, and who after all of the carnage and waste of innocent lives is still hungry for more?

However, we've already gone over there and incurred huge costs, at the same time as Bush was insisting on tax cuts. Take for example the $87-billion supplemental that John Kerry was ridiculed "being for before he was against." It was a little bit under $300 for every man, woman and child in this country — and that was just one of the many Iraq funding bills that came through Congress. If a hawk like Lieberman is being honest about the costs here, I welcome it. We've gone too long without that dialogue.

Even if we packed up and left today, there would be continuing costs for wounded and killed troops, plus continuing costs for better uses of our time and money, such as actually going after Bin Laden instead of being bogged down in Iraq. We need to seriously ask questions about how we intend to pay for this stuff, rather than just giving the next generation the entire bill through massive borrowing.

I agree, and it can be done simply by restoring dividend/capital gain tax rates to those of ordinary earned income. Why, in a time of war and deficit, should the rich get preferential rates on their taxes?

"Instead of raising taxes, how about some accounting. Present every US taxpayer with a War Bill - you paid X dollars in taxes, of that A dollars were spent on War in Iraq, B dollars in Afgnanistan, C dollars in general War on Terror expenditures, and so on."

I'm afraid that doesn't work because of deficit spending. Taxes have not been raised to pay for our military commitments — they've been funded almost entirely through borrowing.

"We need to seriously ask questions about how we intend to pay for this stuff, rather than just giving the next generation the entire bill through massive borrowing." Well, sure we screwed up the economy and will have to fix it. But what on earth does that have to do with proposing a resolution to extend and increase funding for the war? This may be the single stupidest post on TPM I've ever read. No wonder it got such a reaction. I'm frankly appalled. Andrew and Josh, are you actually watching this stuff?

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I don't know if a dedicated "terror tax" is the answer, but the bottom line is, if our military adventures are truly worthwhile, we should pay for them now, not ask future generations to pay for it.

I do also think it is important that Americans be asked to sacrifice something more than the balance on their credit cards at the nation's shopping malls.

Not to take up the cudgels for his stupid idea, but the very first search result you offer to prove that EK is a Liebershill has this line in it:

Finally, Lieberman won because he was able to misrepresent his views on Iraq, not because voters agreed with his actual views on the subject.

The second one has this:

[Lieberman said] via an aide that he will not use his chairmanship on the Homeland Security committee to aggressively probe the government's catastrophic failings in the wake of Hurricane Katrina — in direct contradiction of statements he made during last year's campaign.

So, I have to ask, did you look at the search results, or assume we would not?

etc.

McCain's False Claim: Lieberman's Win Means America Isn't Pro-Withdrawal [you've missed the point. we assumed comprehension. kleefeld lauds lieberman for his winning/winner's "ability" to "misrepresent" and "blur" his position on iraq; but accuses mccain of "mendacity?";]

Without directly responding to [Melancon's] criticism, she offered some general comments about Lieberman's work to reform FEMA, noting that "the public is aware — as a result of Lieberman's work — that the response to Katrina is sorely lacking." ... Most interesting, however, was Phillips's final comment on the matter: "All legislators must seek bipartisan accommodation with the other party, with the White House, if they want to get anything done. And the fact is Senator Lieberman's record of accomplishment is quite extensive." [title: lousiana pol slams lieberman; kleefeld citing dhs: lieberman, the paul revere of katrina's aftermath; also lieberman, the peacemaker.]

Lieberman, meanwhile, continued successfully speaking to GOP voters in terms unlikely to alienate the Dems who still support him. And he came across as convincing when he made his oft-stated case that there's no reason strong enough to toss someone with his experience. ["successfully" spoke? what does this mean? "convincing"? how does kleefeld know?]

And Joe Lieberman has a fun, offbeat ad of his own, making sure voters will be able to find his name on the ballot. The ending is reminiscent of Harry Truman's advice to people who want a friend in Washington — appropriate, given Lieberman's political headaches this year. [kleefeld: lieberman = truman]

Today, Lieberman encountered some of his Democratic colleagues, and it certainly doesn't appear that they're holding his comments against him. From a report just posted on CNN: Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who bolted the Democratic party after losing a primary election this year to run as an independent, won a standing ovation at a closed meeting of all Senate Democrats Tuesday. Lieberman was introduced by Democratic Leader Harry Reid who, according to Lieberman, told his colleagues that, "families go through crisis but we survived and I just want to welcome back Joe Lieberman." What do you make of this? That Lieberman's veiled threat is working? That senior Dems don't take his threat seriously in the least and think it's just empty posturing designed to get attention? That senior Dems never took the challenge to Lieberman by Ned Lamont and Connecticut Dem primary voters seriously? My money's on the latter two. [kleefeld downplays lieberman threat; emphasizes lieberman applause]

Maybe it's really true that the DSCC is upset with Joe Lieberman for dividing the party in his personal quest to remain in office. If you go to the DSCC's political map and run your mouse-arrow over each state, you get the incumbent Senator — in every case but one. In Connecticut, it doesn't show Lieberman -- instead, it shows Ned Lamont, who's decidedly not the incumbent. What's more, the race is listed as an open seat, which it isn't. See? Who says the DSCC isn't penalizing Lieberman for his indy run? [kleefeld: lieberman, dscc victim.]

Re-Electing Lieberman Is "Insanity" By Eric Kleefeld | bio In this undeniably funny new ad from Ned Lamont, a car repeatedly drives straight into brick walls with graffiti labels such as "Iraq War" and "Dick Cheney's Energy Bill." After the car is wrecked and crumpled beyond recognition, an actor playing a dazed and confused Joe Lieberman stumbles out from the driver's seat. Lamont concludes: "If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, why in the world would we send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate?" View it here. [kleefeld distorts lamont ad; see comments]

Lieberman (CFL) 47%, Lamont (D) 45% Submitted by Eric Kleefeld on September 20, 2006 - 11:32am. [the only poll result posted by kleefeld]

Rep. Chris Shays, pro-Iraq war Republican and prominent Joe Lieberman supporter, is now simply a prominent Joe Lieberman supporter. According to the Washington Post, Shays has called for a timetable to withdraw most of our troops next year. Now even Republicans in Connecticut are running on the Ned Lamont platform. [there's no lieberman context in the post article kleefeld cites. kleefeld creates one.]

Again, I understand the principle you are advancing here.  I too welcome Lieberman's honesty on the issue.  But the question is not whether Joe's honesty is welcome - it's whether Democrats should support the proposal on its merits.

Even if we packed up and left today, there would be continuing costs for wounded and killed troops, plus continuing costs for better uses of our time and money, such as actually going after Bin Laden instead of being bogged down in Iraq. We need to seriously ask questions about how we intend to pay for this stuff, rather than just giving the next generation the entire bill through massive borrowing.

All of this is true.  But Joe's proposal is primarly about Iraq, not "going after Bin Laden."  And the best way to finance Iraq is cutting off the funds.  Not creating new revenue streams through a tax.

As for the overall defense budget, it is a well known fact that the Pentagon is the single biggest pork factory on the planet.  We spend billions each year on technology and equipment designed for conventional European land wars that will never, ever happen again.  If fighting Islamic terrorism is where the defense budget should focus, we should cancel silliness like missile defense and our upteenth nuclear submarine and focus on assets that will help fight the right enemy.  

The best way to have this discussion is to win the presidency in 2008 (so you control the Pentagon budget) and retain control of Congress (so you control the purse strings).  Only then will you be able to begin cutting out unnessary pork. 

At first I thought this was very tongue in cheek sarcasm.

Heh.

This is insane, insulting and idiotic.

Eric, again, most of us agree that we need to pay the war costs and that the tax cuts of the past 6 years are untenable. What we disagree about is this new tax. An intellectually honest position would merely be to refuse to renew the old tax cuts, or to repeal them in the appropriate manner. What you are suggesting is something more. Instead of getting rid of the bad tax cuts, you say we need to create a different tax. Why should we do that, especially if the tax is designed for one specific purpose, namely funding a war that we don't support?

How about we just roll back the tax cuts and get out of Iraq?

J. McCutchen

I wonder..Does JoeMentum's War Tax provide that his War Chest will be kept in a Lock Box?

Grim A new survey of more than 100 U.S. foreign policy experts – both Republicans and Democrats, as well as retired military and intelligence professionals – has found deep pessimism over the "global war on terror" and even deeper pessimism over the war in Iraq.

We should recognize simple truth: the war will go on forever, so we should have a dedicated tax. Perhaps on cigarettes, because it is ever popular to increase taxes on cigarettes. Gasoline -- not so much.

An idea: tax on books, with the exception of cookbooks and romance novels (so the majority would not pay).

We should recognize simple truth: the war will go on forever, so we should have a dedicated tax.

No, it will not go on forever. That's unhistorical. Americans like their wars from time to time. But like night turns in to day, they ultimately get tired of the war and call it off. This war too will end, so long as we don't fall for sucker plays designed to institutionalize it.

Finally, Lieberman won because he was able to misrepresent his views on Iraq, not because voters agreed with his actual views on the subject. Back in July, Lieberman actually said he thought we'd be able to draw down "significant" numbers of troops by now. What's more, Lieberman worked hard to blur the line between himself and Ned Lamont on the Iraq issue. In one ad, for instance, he spoke of wanting to "bring our troops home from Iraq."

An encomium of praise, indeed.

The contentious bone here is linking a new tax with the ongoing war. I would much prefer facing the deficit directly and pushing for tax cut rollback, etc. However, when we are considering restricting funding of the Iraq debacle it is nonsensical to link a new tax to it.

Any linkage smells like giving the monstrous error of Iraq a pass. That's what has gotten this hornet's nest so stirred up. It is backwards; when it was needed was in 2003. What is needed now is the opposite, a new Boland Amendment.