Senator Lieberman just came back from Iraq. He's more encouraged than Harry Reid. He's also more informed (both on the war, and probably on energy, and almost anything else). Not to mention logical:

The officials I met in Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda--and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.

Some of my colleagues in Washington claim we can fight al Qaeda in Iraq while disengaging from the sectarian violence there. Not so, say our commanders in Baghdad, who point out that the crux of al Qaeda's strategy is to spark Iraqi civil war.

Al Qaeda is launching spectacular terrorist bombings in Iraq, such as the despicable attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra this week, to try to provoke sectarian violence. Its obvious aim is to use Sunni-Shia bloodshed to collapse the Iraqi government and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, radicalizing the region and providing a base from which to launch terrorist attacks against the West.

I guess that explains why he was drummed out of the Democrat Party. No moral or intellectual clarity allowed.

There is one thing that makes the biggest difference between Lieberman and most of his former collegues in the democrat party.

Lieberman is looking out for the well being of his country, the others are looking out for the well being of their political career.

If you really believe that Cecil, isn't it time you follow Lieberman's lead on the Immigration Bill. That is unless you are under talk radio control [ Trent Lott's words, not mine ;-) ]

You may be so simplistic as to follow any one persons lead on all subjects, I am not.