Forums

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On Iraq, Lieberman was the opposite of courageous:

• Many liberals started off supporting the war and believed for years that American efforts would somehow conjure a stable democracy out of Iraq’s hot and violent recesses. It took years of bloody photos on the front pages, bleak assessments from generals, and rising regional instability before doubt and fear hardened into distrust and frustration. But for nearly a year now, more than 60 percent of the public has disapproved of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war.
  
  Yet as the public mood changed, Lieberman stood still. While professing unhappiness with what he called a handful of "mistakes," he held fast to his basic support of Bush’s policies. He offered no proposals to stabilize Iraq, reduce anti-American hostility worldwide, or spare the lives of more soldiers. Even his "last ditch" speech on Sunday aimed to shore up wobbly voters understated the gravity of the Iraq debacle. He showed no inclination to rethink the administration’s false framework of either “stay the course” or “cut and run.”
  
  Though Lieberman's piety and stern talk of principles have always played well with pundits who celebrate centrism and bipartisanship as ends in themselves, they came to strike Connecticut voters as arrogance. Lieberman’s stubborn consistency fed the impression not of a brave maverick but of a moralist too smug and proud of his cross-party ties to contemplate change, even in the face of America’s worst foreign policy debacle in decades.

link

The article is a long way of saying that the person does not like Liebermans positions. He is trying to say that because he does not like the guys positions he can't be courageous. People from one political stripe to another don't like to call the enemy courageous, even when they are. That is what cost Bill Maher is job. Suicide bombers are courageous (stupid, misguided and evil - but courageous). Lieberman has been courageous.