I'm tired of a lot of things. One of the things that is fatiguing me is the tendency of Washington insiders to lament Lamont. Why, oh why, sweet Lord, are people getting uppity and challenging Holy Joe Lieberman? Weren't we thrilled, just six years ago, when Holy Joe was selected as our Vice-Presidential candidate? Isn't he a cheerful and swell guy? Don't we have room under our big-ass tent for bloodthirsty warmongering appeasniks? Well, no. We don't. And for the everlasting love of God, our opposition to Joe Lieberman is NOT JUST BECAUSE OF HIS UNWAVERING SUPPORT FOR UNLAWFUL, IDIOTIC, INVASIONS OF ASIAN COUNTRIES. Have you ever heard of the charge "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?

Apparently, the Los Angeles Times editorial board has not heard of that charge. Because they seem to think we are just a bunch of intolerant and petulant roughnecks.

Democratic voters in Connecticut have the right to nominate the candidate of their choice. But it is more than a little disturbing for the longtime popular senator (and the party's 2000 nominee for vice president) to be targeted for defeat by national fundraisers based on his foreign policy views. There were principled people on both sides of the debate to go to war in Iraq. This page did not support the war, but it cannot cheer on liberal activists who run the risk of being guilty of the same sort of insistence on ideological purity that they deplore in Republicans.

The Democratic Party — the party of Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy — is a big enough tent to include voices on the conservative end of national security policy. Lieberman's views shouldn't trigger a nationwide jihad against him. To their credit, most party leaders are backing Lieberman.

Even though IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT THE WAR, let's tackle that 'ideological purity' thing as if it were. If we have a principle that says it is wrong to invade a country based on Silvio Berlusconi's badly forged documents and to kill 30,000+ people, mostly innocent, and to hook people's balls up to electrodes, and to rape them, and to set german shepherds on them, and to religiously and sexually humiliate them, and to summarily execute them, and to destroy their internal security apparatus without replacing it, and to call them all terrorists, and to leave them without water in the desert, or air conditioning, and to keep doing it year after year after year...then what are we supposed to do with someone like Joe Lieberman? Do you, the Los Angeles Times editorial board, have a pat answer for that one? Do you recognize that we find Joe Lieberman's foreign policy views to be a tad bit more than "a little disturbing"? Do you get that we don't want his bloddy little hands anywhere near the hors' doerves under our great big massive tent?

We do not need, nor can we tolerate, a man that will go on Fox News and yuck it up with the likes of Sean Hannity, all the while lamenting Lamont, and complaining about crazy liberals that don't support George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's evil, disastrous, disgraceful, shameful, extraordinarily violent and expensive policies. We are patriots that actually do not think that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Haditha should be seen as politics as usual, with no consequences. We don't think the president and the Governor of California should be reading our emails, listening to our phone conversations, and infiltrating our political meetings without any judicial or congressional oversight. We threw Nixon out of office in disgrace for that...IN WARTIME. So, get over yourselves, you lazy fucking contented insider bastards. Because even though IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT THE WAR, the war and all it's accompanying atrocities, expense, failure, and loss of inalienable rights, is plenty enough to oppose Joe Lieberman.