Once again the "independent Democrat" from Connecticut is burnishing his Republican credentials, this time by announcing that he will join in a filibuster against the Senate resolution opposing the escalation of troops in Iraq.

MS. BLOCK: Can you imagine a scenario where you would join in with a Republican filibuster to stop the resolution, if it comes to that? SEN. LIEBERMAN: I can because I think that it – this is this important.

Calling the resolution, "phony," Lieberman says:

I say to those who are opposed to what the president is now suggesting that they have a responsibility to do one thing: one is to come up with a better plan if they don’t like this one...

First, for the origin of this argument, go here. And Lieberman, like Bush and his acolytes, continue to ignore that there have been other plans put forward, such as the ones offered by John Murtha, Joe Biden and Jack Reed. But of course their fatal flaw is that they don't agree with the Bush plan to "stay the course, plus 21,500."

And speaking of the number 21,500, is it enough?

MS. BLOCK: Would you say that we actually would need more troops? Is this too little too late? SEN. LIEBERMAN: It’s an interesting question. I don’t think it’s too late. It’s not as many as I would like, but it’s not too little. If I had my druthers, we would be sending 35,000 troops – additional reinforcement troops there, and I base that on a very effective work that has been done by a retired Army chief of staff, Jack Keane and military historian, Fred Kagan.

Leaving aside the credentials of Fred Kagan, let's look at what he and Keane had to say about troop levels:

We need to cut through the confusion. Bringing security to Baghdad -- the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development -- is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.

So those whose work that Lieberman is relying on, as he advocates sending even more American servicemen and women to their possible death, have already said that this escalation is "likely to fail." But as is always the case with the Bush-enablers, it's not Lieberman's ass on the line so what the heck, let's give it another shot.

But if this latest plan doesn't work? From an appearance on Imus, Lieberman said:

...Not everybody can understand they don't want an occupying force but they know that the place really would fall apart. There would be open armed civil war and the Iranians would come in and dominate a good part of the country, so let's hope and pray it works." [...] But some say if you begin to withdraw, then Maliki and the other Iraqis will say 'Oh, my God, they're leaving. We got to get our act together. I don't think so. I think what is more likely is that the Iraqi politicians will begin to hedge their bets, and the militias and the Al Qaeda terrorists will just hold back until the day we're gone, and then chaos will break out,...There's a famous old saying that war is a series of catastrophes that ends up in victory for one side, and right now I'd say this plan is the best next step we've got. Let's hope it works, pray it works, and if it doesn't, then we'll figure out what we're gonna do then."

As opposed to the closed, unarmed civil war that there is now? And the militias and terrorists would just hold back? Well, we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?

But here are two things that we can all agree on. That this war has been a series of catastrophes, despite how some people choose to describe it, and that there will be no victory for either side.

And what about the fact that more than 60% of Americans oppose this escalation?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. Look, it’s very – this is very troubling in many ways. I do think that because of the mistakes that have been made in the prosecution of the war, because of the fact that this is an unconventional war in which people – what they see on television at night or hear about on the radio or read in the newspapers are the suicide bombings. And in matters of national security, ultimately two things: one is elected leaders have a responsibility to do what they think is right for the country and the future of the country and not to play to public opinion.

Again, for the origins of this rationalization to ignore the will of the people, see here.

When asked if he still considers himself a Democrat, Lieberman said, "Yeah, I do," and then proceeded to show his loyalty to the Party by saying:

But if the Democratic Party cannot convince the American people that we are prepared to protect them in a dangerous world, ultimately I don’t think we’re going to be successful in national elections. [...] Frankly, I’m surprised that at this moment I’m in a very small group within the Democratic Party in Congress that’s taking the position I am.

Yes, it's surprising that more Democrats aren't willing to join with the Republicans to continue to support the failed policies of this President. A failure that has already cost 3025 American, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.