Joe Lieberman versus Ned Lamont

Wow! Democrat versus Democrat and both fine persons in almost every way. But the choice this time isn't "Joe versus Ned"; it's "War/Occupation versus Peace/Sensibility."

As it stands today (and I haven't spoken with Richard, my brother in Connecticut where all this is happening, in at least two days), Lamont is trailing Lieberman by a two-digit margin ... about 15 percentage points. He was behind by at least 40 points only a few weeks ago, so maybe the momentum is on his side. Indeed, Dick Morris, a real pro in the business of politics, according to my brother, Richard, is predicting that Lamont will overtake Lieberman by August 8 -- the day of the Democratic primary in Connecticut -- this, according to NewsMax's website. It was also hinted at by this week's Time magazine which I am still digesting.

Lord knows, I wish Senator Joe Lieberman the best, and I truly believe that he wants us to stay the course in Iraq for what he honestly believes would meet the long-term goal of a stable Middle East, but on this one he's just wrong, plain and simple wrong. Clearly, Israel and many pro-Zionist Americans see the issue of stability in that region and Israeli security as largely hinging on our continuing presence with a permanent US presence there in the manner of permanent well-equipped bases (and manpower) in Iraq. Notice the number of times I used the word, "permanent"!

And that is, isn't it, Senator Lieberman, what you believe best for Israel and the entire Middle East?

But I see it differently. If we were able to extract our young servicemen and women out of Iraq -- redeployed nearby with the substantial air power we have shown to be capable of employing with almost no notice (remember "Shock and Awe) -- the non-Iraqi terrorists would almost have to leave as the Shiites and Sunnis would be literally forced to come to some kind of permanent accommodation ... likely after some fighting, but with losses far fewer than the civilian population is currently enduring there. And oh yes, with no (zero!) additional US losses in Iraq.

By the way -- Senator Lieberman: I voted for you as Vice President in 2000 and was proud of the way in which you handled both yourself and your campaign. I believe you are deep inside proud and happy with the way Mr. Bush is conducting his foreign policies in the Middle east -- in particular, the way he is staying the course in Iraq. But (and this is a big "but"), if you should happen to fall behind Mr. Lamont and lose on August 8, please, please, don't run as an Independent. If that happens -- that is, if you should happen to lose on August 8 and then stay out of the November elections as an Independent or whatever else might open up, who knows? GWB might replace Donald Rumsfeld with you, who would then be "available," to be Bush's new SecDef in September or October as a desperation move on the Republican Party's part before the mid-term elections in November and then ... you'd have a few moments in the sun before the new Democrat-controlled Congress forces an immediate withdrawal from our ill-conceived escapade in Iraq.

Think on that one, Senator Lieberman; it's a no-lose proposition!