Joe To Hell

It's even money on whether Lieberman is trying to be some sort of stalking-horse for what would be a disastrous strategic move, or if he just lives to preen in front of whatever camera will watch him bloviate and smell his own farts:

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Mr Lieberman told CBS. "And to me that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people to kill our soldiers."

....

"By some estimates, [Iranian-trained Iraqis] have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Mr Lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But . . . we can't just talk to them. If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force. And to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

Asked if he was suggesting an attack by ground or air, Mr Lieberman said he would leave that to the generals, but he thought "a lot of it" could be done from the air. Not to take action would be seen as a sign of weakness, he said.

You know what's also a sign of weakness? Being bogged down in two intractable conflicts at the same time, by militias and disaffected, radicalized sociopaths. If Lieberman doesn't understand that any "evidence" and "estimates" need to be thoroughly scrutinized this time around, then he's an even bigger putz than previously thought.

The worst part of it is that Lieberman's ridiculous assessments are still thought of as "serious" and "respectable", even though he has no credibility.