Lieberman’s war support riles fellow Democrats

WASHINGTON – Five years ago, Sen. Joe Lieberman was one of President Bush’s arch political rivals. Now many in his party complain that he sounds more like Bush’s running mate.

The Connecticut Democrat’s strong public defense of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war has provided the White House with an invaluable rejoinder to intensifying criticism from other Democrats. In public statements and a newspaper column, Lieberman has argued that Bush has a strategy for victory in Iraq, has dismissed calls for the president to set a timetable for troop withdrawal, and has warned that it would be a “colossal mistake” for the Democratic leadership to “lose its will” at this critical point in the war.

Lieberman’s contrarian behavior is not out of character – he is far more hawkish than the majority of Democrats, and he has vigorously backed invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein from the beginning. But the latest defense of Bush and his stinging salvos at some in his own party have infuriated Democrats, who say he is undercutting their effort to forge a consensus on the war and draw clear distinctions with Republicans before the 2006 election.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is troubled by Lieberman’s comments, Reid’s aides said. “I’ve talked to Senator Lieberman, and unfortunately he is at a different place on Iraq than the majority of the American people,” Reid said Friday.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters this week that “I completely disagree” with Lieberman.

Liberal political groups, including Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, are considering ways to retaliate, including backing a challenge to Lieberman in next year’s Democratic primary.

The administration, on the other hand, can’t stop gushing over Lieberman. Vice President Dick Cheney called him “a fine U.S. senator,” and Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman contrasted him with his “retreat and defeat” Democratic colleagues.

There have even been rumors that Lieberman is being considered as a replacement for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, if the embattled Pentagon boss retires. Lieberman dismisses the speculation as a “Washington fantasy.”

Lieberman shrugs off the criticism by fellow Democrats and seems perfectly comfortable with the compliments he has received from Republicans about his views on Iraq. “They’re not misquoting me,” he said in an interview this week. “I’ve had this position for a long time – that we need to finish the job.”

Lieberman, 63, has long been admired within his party for his independence of thought and his civility, although he is more conservative than most Democrats on cultural issues and foreign policy. He played a leading role in helping pass the Persian Gulf War resolution in January 1991, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, and he called for a “final victory” over Saddam.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Lieberman strongly backed Bush’s call for a war against terrorism in Afghanistan. Later that year, he was one of 10 lawmakers who signed a letter urging Bush to target Iraq next.

Lieberman reached the peak of his popularity as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. But his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 flopped.

The latest flap began after Lieberman traveled to Iraq last month. He returned to write a Nov. 29 Wall Street Journal column in which he contradicted a core Democratic criticism – that the administration has no strategy for victory in Iraq. “Yes, we do,” Lieberman wrote, brushing aside calls from Democrats and some Republicans for Bush to set a timetable for bringing troops home.

Then, at a Tuesday news conference on Iraq, Lieberman gave his party a tongue-lashing for pressing Bush too forcefully.

“History will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust to join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq,” Lieberman said.