Recently, as in last week, as noted in the press:
"Another line was certainly crossed by Joe Lieberman last week, when he said, "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." Mark Schmitt TPMCafe
So here Joe Lieberman's endorsement of the Cheney view of the role of dissent, together with his blindness to the fact that only the president undermine's presidential credibility, from just an historical perspective,
is truely astounding.
Even during World War II, in the 1944 election, Thomas Dewey and the Republicans critized Roosevelt , the then Commander in Chief, all throughout the campaign. Did this effect the outcome of WW II. Not really.
Moving up to the Korean War, the first two years of that war, the Republicans gave Pres. Truman unmitigated Hell, especially after the Chinese came in and kicked the Allied forces back down to the 38th Parallel. Plus they gave Truman Holy Hell when he fired MacArthur.
During the Vietnam War, in the time period Dec. 67 thru January 1968 especially, both Democrats and Republicans were attacking LBJs prosecution of the war as Commander in Chief.
Further on in the Vietnam war, when Pres. Nixon opted for the invasion of Cambodia in April 1970, dissent exploded in this country. Nixon as Commander in Chief was severly criticized in other words.
Yet, now in the case of a war that was never all that popular with Democrats anyway, if we are to follow the Lieberman dictum, suddenly Democrats are to stop criticizing George Bush as Commander in Chief, and I suppose sit on their hands for the next three years.
Granted Liberman may be a big fan of the Iraq War, because he is a big fan of Israel. But in this case I think Lieberman is full of horse shit.