Thomas Friedman has at last admitted that the Iraq occupation is a disaster.

Longtime followers, fans and critics alike, of the infamous New York Times columnist were likely taken aback upon reading Friedman's Aug. 4 NYT column, in which, in career-defining words, he declared, "It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting a civil war."

Friedman, well known for his long-running cheerleading of corporate globalization in addition to his support for the neocon project in the Middle East (as one of the NYT's resident "liberals," no less), is just one of several erstwhile war supporters who have recently come to sober terms with the facts on the ground in Iraq. Back in October 2003, Friedman unblushingly declared, "US power is not being used in Iraq for oil, or imperialism, or to shore up a corrupt status quo... This is the most radical-liberal revolutionary war the US has ever launched[.]" (Sock it to the man, Tom!) Now, he has belatedly realized that "staying the course," to quote his Aug. 4 bombshell, "is pointless."

One shudders to think of what other stunners Friedman has in store for us. Coming soon to the exclusive confines of Times Select: Friedman admits, seven long years after the Battle of Seattle, that globalization is in fact screwing the world's poor! Stay tuned... --Jeff Stevens

Joseph Lieberman is at last paying for his long litany of DINO sins, and the whole DSCC is watching. (DINO = Democrat In Name Only; DSCC is the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.)

By the time you read this, it's likely that Connecticut Sen. Lieberman will have been trounced in that state's Aug. 8 US Senate primary by his increasingly popular antiwar Democratic challenger Ned Lamont. On Aug. 3, a Quinnipiac University poll gave Lamont a 13-point lead (54-41) over Lieberman going into the primary.

The Quinnipiac poll, which surveyed 890 likely Democratic voters between July 25 and July 31, indicated strong support for Lamont across a broad demographic base, from the college-educated to the working-class, including many self-identified moderates. According to the Quinnipiac website, "Among Lamont supporters, 65 percent say their vote is mainly against Lieberman.... Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq is the main reason they are voting for the challenger, 44 percent of Lamont voters say, with 50 percent who say the war is one of the reasons."

The conventional wisdom, as expressed in an Aug. 6 Washington Post report on the Lamont-Lieberman race, is that a Lamont primary victory "would confirm the growing strength of the grassroots and Internet activists who first emerged in Howard Dean's presidential campaign. Driven by intense anger at President Bush and fierce opposition to the Iraq war, they are on the brink of claiming their most significant political triumph, one that will reverberate far beyond the borders [of Connecticut] if Lieberman loses."

In other words, as this issue of ETS! hits the streets, post-Connecticut primary, pro-war DINOs nationwide, as well as the DSCC, if they're wise enough to see the writing on the wall, may soon have to come to terms, one way or another, with their constituents' clear opposition to the Iraq occupation.

Do I even have to mention her name this time? --J.S.