W's foreign policy school is in session!

How does the saying go? Once is an accident. Two is a trend. Three is a problem. And that's exactly how many times the supposed foreign policy "expert" running for president got it wrong during the last few days in Iraq. From HuffPo:

For the third time in two days, the Arizona Republican has pushed the definitively false statement that the terrorist group Al-Qaeda was getting assistance from Iran, even though he was publicly ridiculed for the same false assertion on Tuesday.

This time, in a statement from his campaign honoring the fifth year anniversary of the war, McCain wrote:

"Today in Iraq, America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism. The security gains over the past year have been dramatic and undeniable. Al-Qaeda and Shia extremists — with support from external powers such as Iran — are on the run but not defeated."

On Tuesday, the senator, appearing in Israel, made a nearly identical assertion that Al-Qaeda was leaving Iraq to retool and regroup in Iran.

Absolutely beyond the pale. If McCain's strong suit is supposedly foreign policy, I don't even want to know what his weak points are.

Many in the media are treating this as an inconsequential accident, but I'm not one of them. Once, maybe. But this guy is running for president - before he opens his big yap, he ought to make sure he knows what he's talking about. Otherwise, he runs the risk of carrying on Bush's legacy (if he's elected) of not knowing his arse from a hole in the ground, unless someone from his staff can put words in his mouth. (In this case, it was Joe "Zell Miller" Lieberman, who's clearly bucking to be Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense in a (heaven forbid) McCain administration.

Seriously though, this was no accident; this is a "slip" right out of the Dick & Bush play book - keep saying it over and over, and sooner or later people will equate Iran with Al-Qaeda, which is precisely what Bush and Co. did during the run-up to the War in Iraq; keep insinuating that Iran and Al-Qaeda are connected, but if directly asked, deny you're making the connection. Then, have people like Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Lielly do the dirty work for you. Sooner or later, at worst, the public is confused: "Is Al-Qaeda in Iran? I don't know - I thought I heard something about it on the news..."

Blue Texan at Firedoglake put it best: Will Joe Lieberman be at McCain's side at 3 a.m. when the call comes?

Joe Leaverman?

Word around the campfire is that Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman (Above right, with John McCain), who has pledged to caucus (Congressional speak for "vote with") Democrats, is considering jumping ship and moving over to the Republican party.

Let him.

The last thing this party needs is another Zell Miller, a turncoat piece of garbage if there ever was one.

Yes, if the Democrats let Lieberman go, it will cost them control of the Senate, but in all honesty, I'd much rather see the Dems stick to their principles by not letting Joe dictate to them.

And besides, in another 18 months, we'll have another election, and by then, if the Democrats have done a decent job, the party will have a realistic shot at picking up more seats in the Senate - of the 33 Senate seats up for reelection in 2008, 21 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. (See map above - Dark Blue is Democrats up for a reelection, dark red Republicans, and light red is retiring Republicans. Gray states have no one up for reelection.)

What's more, the Democrats hold such a slim majority right now, they don't have the votes to simply move forward with their agenda anyway. Sure, there would be disadvantages to sharing control with the Republicans if Joe moves to the GOP, which would necessitate the parties share power, but in the end, I don't want to see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democrats get dictated to by a myopic Democrat who still blindly supports this war.

Let the GOP have a cup o' Joe.