So What's Next?

The Day After
Stripped of the Democratic party's support, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman began his independent campaign for re-election Wednesday after his 18-year Washington career was derailed by a primary loss to an anti-war candidate.Lieberman's 10,000-vote loss Tuesday to Greenwich's Ned Lamont sent shock waves through the local and national Democratic party. It was Lieberman's first loss in a Connecticut campaign since 1980, and he's long been one of Connecticut's most popular Democrats.

On Wednesday, he filed petitions to run in November as an independent and dismissed his campaign staff, saying he hadn't been aggressive enough in countering Lamont during the primary."The bottom line is that I'm definitely in," Lieberman told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "While I consider myself a devoted Democrat, I am even more devoted to my state and my country."

Change The Course
Yesterday at the ballot box, ordinary Americans did what President Bush and Congress have refused to do: they started to change course. In the high-profile Connecticut Democratic Senate primary race, businessman Ned Lamont defeated three-term Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D), a long-time supporter of the war in Iraq, becoming one of just a handful of challengers to defeat an incumbent senator in recent U.S. history. Officials believe the election turn-out "broke the state's record for a non-presidential-year primary," reflecting "stiff anti-status-quo winds blowing across the political landscape," a deep dissatisfaction with the policies of the Bush administration, and most clearly, a strong desire to change course in Iraq.

Not Out Of the Loop, Right On Point
On Sunday, Lamont laid out his Iraq position on ABC's This Week: "We say [to the Iraqi government] our...front line troops are going to be out within a year, then we negotiate with them the terms of how we do that. But it doesn't mean we're deserting the people of Iraq. We're going to be there for humanitarian aid, we'll be there for reconstruction, we'll be there for political support. But I think it's important to get the very American face off of this occupation and give the Iraqis space to solve this on their own." This position -- a phased redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq, with a commitment to aiding Iraqis with their political transition and reconstruction -- is the position held by most Americans. A Gallup poll released last week "revealed another upward bump" in the number of Americans (55 percent) who now want U.S. troops to redeploy from Iraq in the next 12 months. Just as important, the approach supported by Connecticut voters presents the United States with its best chance for success in Iraq. A responsible redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq offers the best incentive for Iraqis to take over their country, while allowing the U.S. to refocus on a global security strategy that prioritizes the threats of terrorist networks and nuclear proliferation.

Let The Smearing Begin
Conservative pundits and some mainstream journalists have used Lamont's ascendancy to rehash the same tired, discredited claims about progressives being "weak on national security." ABC News political analyst Cokie Roberts declared this past weekend that a Lamont victory would be a "disaster" politically since he would be pushing policy "to the left" to "play to his base." Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron claimed Lamont backers were "beating up" on politicians "for taking a tough and strong national security position," opening them up to criticism that they're a bunch of cut-and-runners. The New Republic's editor-in-chief Martin Peretz called a possible Lamont victory "a dream come true for Karl Rove," while Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said that Lamont represented "mindless anti-war leftism" whose core foreign policy is "appeasement."

Time for a reality check on the conservative national security record: violence and instability continue to paralyze the Middle East. Iraq has descended into an anarchic civil war, with more than 6,000 Iraqi civilians killed in May and June. North Korea just launched seven missiles into the Sea of Japan, Iran is aggressively developing its nuclear program, Afghanistan is "close to anarchy," and al-Qaeda "has not only regrouped, but it is on the march." The result is that a majority of Americans now disapprove of President Bush's handling of every major national security issue facing the country. Fifty percent disapprove of his handling of terrorism (vs. 47 percent approval), 50 percent disapprove of his handling of the conflict in Israel and Lebanon (vs. 43 percent approval); and 62 percent disapprove of his handling of Iraq (vs. 36 percent approval).

Has Karzai Had Enough?
Although Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently stated that she does not "know anyone who is more admired or respected by the international community" than Hamid Karzai, the leader of Afghanistan is facing increased criticism both at home and abroad. A growing number of Afghans and some foreign supporters are said to be "losing faith" in Karzai's government, "which is besieged by an escalating insurgency and endemic corruption and is unable to protect or administer large areas of the country." Equally frustrated, Karzai criticized the international community for "long ignor[ing] his pleas for more help to build the nation's security forces." Taking "bitter umbrage" at international criticism of his government, he has now "strongly suggested" that he will not seek another term in the next national elections in 2009. "I don't think it's good to be running all the time. Let other people get a chance to run." His remarks raise significant questions for Afghanistan, where violence has surged this year to its worst level since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, thanks to a resurgent Taliban that has grown increasingly sophisticated. Opium production also remains alarmingly high, with Afghanistan producing 87 percent of the world's opium in 2005, and citizens are increasingly angry with the widespread corruption that pervades their entire system.

Quickies:
The percentage of Americans opposed to the war in Iraq has grown to 60, "the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003." 57 percent supported a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq.

1,855 bodies showed up at the Baghdad morgue in July. This is a 16 percent rise from June and a 71 percent increase from January.

The United Nations has stopped deliveries of aid to southern Lebanese villages "because of the danger on the roads" and because the "last bridge over the Litani River north of Tyre had been blown up."

The World Health Organization warned that if fuel is not delivered soon, 60 percent of the hospitals in Lebanon will 'simply cease to function.

The "ridiculous" trailer situation in Louisiana: "Nearly 1,200 St. Bernard Parish families are still waiting to get into trailers that sit locked on their home sites but need utilities or other services, and 400 families waiting for trailers have none at all." "The families say countless calls to FEMA have failed to help."

The American Bar Association's House of Delegates yesterday voted to say it "opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the misuse of presidential signing statements."

The Energy Department is considering tapping America's domestic oil reserves after BP's announcement that it is shutting down its Alaska operations.

(Sources: CT Courant, Slate, Editor and Publisher, Center For American Progress, UPI, Washington Post, CNN, UNODC, Seattle Times, Boston Globe)