GIULIANI/LIEBERMAN '08?

I don't call it "The War on Terror," I call it "The Terrorists War Against Us."

--Rudy Giuliani, fund-raiser in California, March 5

The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.

--Rudy Giuliani, campaign appearance, April 24

The term "global war on terror" ... "served its purpose for a while" but he now thinks "terrorists' war against us" is more helpful and accurate, he said.

--USA Today on Rudy Giuliani, May 2


In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us.

--Senator Joe Lieberman, Wall Street Journal op-ed today

Coincidence?

Or are these two self-righteous blowhards from neighboring states, both of whom believe they embody the foreign policy of the United States personally, starting to exchange pompous-rhetoric tips?

We know Lieberman will endorse Giuliani in '08 (or Thompson or Romney or McCain). But is there more to this than that?

****

As for the rest of the Lieberman op-ed: Don't bother. It's exactly what you'd expect -- the evildoers want to kill us so no criticism of the war strategy is ever acceptable, Baghdad and Anbar are better and pay no attention to the rest of the country where violence is increasing. Well, maybe that's not exactly what he's saying. What he's actually saying is that the Whack-a-Mole results of the surge actually prove we're winning:

Some argue that the new strategy is failing because, despite gains in Baghdad and Anbar, violence has increased elsewhere in the country, such as Diyala province. This gets things backwards: Our troops have succeeded in improving security conditions in precisely those parts of Iraq where the "surge" has focused. Al Qaeda has shifted its operations to places like Diyala in large measure because we have made progress in pushing them out of Anbar and Baghdad. The question now is, do we consolidate and build on the successes that the new strategy has achieved, keeping al Qaeda on the run, or do we abandon them?

Yeah, that's the question. So what's the answer, Joe? A surge on top of a surge? With what troops?