At the center of this fray is Sen. Lieberman, a sort of Horatio at the congressional bridge–spiritedly trying to hold back a bipartisan stampede out of Iraq that he believes will result in devastating consequences for that country, the region and, most importantly, U.S. national security.

“Iraq is the central part of a larger and ultimately longer-term conflict in the Middle East between moderates and extremists, between democrats and dictators, between Iran- and Iraq-sponsored terrorism and the rest of the Middle East. . . . Are we going to surrender to them, surrender that country to them, and encourage people like them to be in authority and power all over the Middle East and in a better position to strike us again?” asks Mr. Lieberman. If only Livy had his quill today. ~Kimberley Strassel

Never mind that Horatio was defending Rome against invasion, not trying to persuade the Senate to persist in the invasion of some distant country that brought Rome nothing but grief.  Such is the confusion of war supporters that they mistake the unflinching endorsement of the warfare state’s misguided policies for patriotic valour.  (Then again, they have confused these two for quite a while, so this is nothing new.)  It’s more like Lieberman is some senator urging Augustus to send more legions into the Teutoberg Forest shortly after Varro’s legions were annihilated.  “We can’t withdraw behind the Rhine!  Defensible boundaries?  That would be crazy!”