When I saw Carrie’s post on a “Democrat for commonsense,” I instantly assumed she was talking about Senator Lieberman, who may hold the key to Iraq in his hands. She wasn’t, so there are at least two commonsense Democrats. 

Regarding Lieberman, the New York Sun (have you noticed how many great stories this little paper breaks?) reports:

“The only pro-war senator to caucus with the Democrats may become a Republican.

“That’s what Joseph Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who was defeated in a Democratic primary last summer, is hinting he will do if his old party fiddles with a bill to pay for the troop surge in Iraq.

“Yesterday, Mr. Lieberman told the Web site Politico he had no “desire to switch parties,” but “if that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don’t feel comfortable with.”

“That uncomfortable direction, according to the Politico, will concern the $99 billion supplemental military budget request the White House is expected to submit to Congress early next month. While the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, a Democrat of Nevada, has ruled out any Vietnam-style decision to cut off funding for the war, Republicans are now expecting Democrats in the House to attach conditions to the spending bill, a move they decry as tantamount to micromanaging the war for Iraq.”

In history, wars have been won or lost. There are victories and defeats. You surrender or accept the other army’s surrender. The Democrats can’t quite live with either of these alternatives (and I mean either – a victory would be bad for them now). They want to revoke the war. That is why it is essential for them to make the public accept their false claim that Bush lied.

They have come up with ways to end the war – but as Charles Krauthammer argues, these are not the right way to end the war.