While the Independent Lieberman caucuses and mostly votes with the liberal wing of the Senate Democrats, his statement yesterday regarding the 99-0 passage of sanctions against Iran may prove to be a game changer:

While we hope that our combined sanctions will change the calculus of the Iranian regime, we must also recognize that every day that passes brings Iran closer to the point of nuclear no return. Ultimately, we must do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability—through peaceful and diplomatic means if we possibly can, but through military force if we absolutely must

Its doubtful that anyone in the Obama administration or the Democrat Senate will to disagree with Lieberman’s statement. None have that kind of clout anymore. The Connecticut Senator’s simple phrase about using military force to deal with the Iranians serves as the conscience of purpose.

Fate would have it that a Rolling Stone reporter would lead to the return of a man who’s credibility parallels that of Lieberman. Democrat’s including a would-be presidential candidate and current Secretary of State in Hillary Clinton mocked General David Petraeus during his successful military campaign that ended the Iraq War. Democrat’s no longer mock him as they know they dare not.

It may very well turn out that Patraeus rescues Obama’s presidency by winning in Afghanistan. Petraeus’s return likely put an end to the arbitrary July 2011 withdrawl date that Obama implemented to appease his base. Petraeus’ reputation gives Obama the cover he needs when the former indicates that the time table is unfeasible.

The Taliban slept less soundly knowing that Petraeus is taking command. Any flaws there were in McChrystal’s tactics will be changed. There will be new rules of engagement and the Taliban know it.

As Leiberman has counseled the President, it might be time to reconsider his civilian team in Afghanistan. Whether or not Obama chooses to make changes, Petraeus is the new sheriff in town. Statesmen like Leiberman will maintain the political leverege in favor of the mission in Washington.

At any rate, the Boyd campaign disagrees with Meggs:

“The facts are that Sen. Lawson has already admitted to taking property that was not his, and only returned the property at the request of the Tallahassee Police Department three days later,” said Boyd campaign manager J.R. Starrett. “The video camera that he aggressively took out of the hands of one of our staffers was damaged beyond repair.”

The camera was damaged, so Lawson’s staff said an identical model was bought and, because the congressman had left the parade, given to Boyd’s son David later Saturday. The original camcorder resurfaced and Lawson’s campaign posted a 30-second clip of the confrontation on YouTube.

The YouTube video is further evidence that Boyd intends to get his opponent on camera:

Lawson is heard in the clip, asking Mason who he works for and why he was at his offices.

The clip ends with Mason saying, “Sir, can you let go?”

Here’s more on the amount of campaign cash available to the candidates.

McChrystal may be at fault for expressing his frustrations to Rolling Stone. He is not at fault for the lack of coherence in the Afghan campaign or the continued feuding over strategy. That is Obama’s responsibility.

As it appears that it was McChrystal’s aides who provided the condemning background for the article, he shouldn’t be fired nor should he resign his commission. While it’s appropriate for the Commander in Cheif to call McChrystal on the carpet, President Obama should use this as an opportunity to end divisions within his administration.

After the dressing down, Obama should have a frank converstaion with his general about the mission. He needs to know what General McChrystal real views are. It is time for the President to side with the mission and not to continue to appease his base. Anything less than this will be a failure of leadership.

UPDATE: Lets not forget how the media loved military criticism of President Bush