According to CBS News, the Senator decided to remind us that

Our enemies will test the new president early.  Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration.

Let's be honest: it may be fear-mongering, but on this point, Joe Lieberman is also probably right.  As Democrats, it is true that we must brace ourselves for the likelihood of another terrorist attack, and commit ourselves to doing whatever we can to protect ourselves.  We want this country safe just as much as the Republicans.  

But we Democrats also realize that to protect ourselves in the long-term, we need a President who will respond to attacks even-handedly: swift retaliation, though in a way that rallies the world our side instead of inciting further hatred.  We realize that while Ronald Reagan could afford to be a "tough guy" against the Soviet Union, the tough-guy routine--as adopted by Bush--fails miserably in fighting a decentralized ideological movement (the Jihadists).  We recognize that these days, macho "tough guy" rhetoric in a President is actually not tough at all--it's dangerous.        

But not Joe Lieberman.  A far cry from the vice presidential standard-bearer of the Democrats I long respected, Sen. Lieberman (I) now plays the same role as the Republican attack dogs who have (very effectively) branded the Democrats as weak on national security:    

But here's the point.  We're in a war against Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11.  They've been trying to attack us in many, many ways since then . . . McCain knows the world.  He's been tested.  He's ready to protect the security of the American people.

But we know the truth.  As Democrats, we will not feel safer under a McCain Administration than one with an even-handed Obama in control.  And as Americans, neither will we be safer at the whim of four more years of a foreign policy that has failed us time and time again over the last eight.  

If we had done what Senator Obama asked us to do for the last couple of years, today Iran and al Qaeda would be in control of Iraq. It would be a terrible defeat for us and our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world. Instead, we've got a country that's defending itself, that's growing economically, where there's been genuine political reconciliation, and where Iran and al Qaeda are on the run. And that's the way it ought to be.

Newsflash to Joe Lieberman:  If we had done what Senator Obama asked us to do in 2002, there would never have been even the possibility of Iran or al Qaeda in control of Iraq.  If we had done what Senator Obama (or Al Gore or so many others) asked us to do, thousands of lives would not have been taken, trillions of dollars would not have been spent, al Qaeda would have been nowhere near Iraq, and we would have been much, much safer than we are today.

And if my grandmother (and a few others) had not mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan eight years ago, we also would have averted this all.  Al Gore would have been President, there would have been no war in Iraq, and you--Vice President Lieberman--would have been running for President today on a bread-and-butter Democratic domestic platform.

If only...