Lieberman v. Lieberman on Iraq Timetables

It all depends on who's proposing the timetable.

Lieberman, August 10, discussing Democrat Ned Lamont's proposal that we set a timetable to pull out of Iraq:

"I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet communists we fought during the long Cold War," Lieberman said.

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

Lieberman, August 25, discussing Republican Christopher Shays' proposal that we set a timetable to pull out of Iraq:

"It seems to me that Chris is saying, maybe we ought to set some goals for when we want to get out, and I'd like to see what he has in mind before I comment on it," Lieberman said while campaigning in New Haven.

"As I've said to you over and over again, the sooner we get out of Iraq, the better it's going to be for the Iraqis and us, but if we leave too soon for reasons of American politics, it's going to be disaster for the Iraqis and for us," he said.

Lieberman, August 27, discussing Democrat Ned Lamont's proposal that we set a timetable to pull out of Iraq:

I believe that Ned Lamont's strategy of pulling all our troops out by an arbitrary, politically determined date will lead to the collapse of Iraq, Iran surging in, and Iraq becoming a safe haven for al-Qaida and a launching pad for terrorist strikes against other countries in the region and the United States.

Obviously Lieberman didn't endorse Rep. Shays' proposal, but it seems that if a Republican proposes that we set a timetable to withdraw from Iraq, that's at least worthy of serious consideration - but if a fellow Democrat does so, then no consideration is needed: the Democrat is handing victory to the enemy.

Newspapers such as the Washington Post and the Hartford Courant love to speak of Lieberman's bipartisanship. I don't get it: how is it bipartisan to always be criticizing Democrats, and always cozying up to Republicans?

When Republicans do it, that's just run-of-the-mill partisanship; it's what one would expect. How exactly is it any different if Lieberman acts like a partisan Republican, but calls himself a Democrat? Changing the label doesn't change what is.