First Joe would probably best be described as a DINO rather then a liberal hawk. I'm a liberal hawk and as rule we don't just regurgatate Bush's blatantly untrue talking points.
As a counterpoint to Joe's recent round of spinning the war in Iraq, could I respectfully suggest two articles:
1. How Bush Created a Theocracy in Iraq By Juan Cole

"The Bush administration naively believed that Iraq was a blank slate on which it could inscribe its vision for a remake of the Arab world. Iraq, however, was a witches’ brew of dynamic social and religious movements, a veritable pressure cooker. When George W. Bush invaded, he blew off the lid."
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_bush_created_a_theocracy_in_iraq/

and Jack Murtha's response to Bush's version of economic progress being made in Iraq:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/07/AR2005120701588.html?nav=rss_politics

Also this article turned out to be very
predictive of the situation we fave now in regards to getting a grip on Islamic terrorism: Israeli Think Tank: Iraq War Distracted US, 'Created Momentum' for Terrorists.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1011-25.htm

Real liberal hawks save their armies to fight the battles that matter, they have real accomplishable goals, and we believe that its not very productive to create a host of new enemies by fighting wars that distract from the ones that should be fought.

Well, I used to describe myself as part of the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party. Apparently, I'm not part of that wing, I am that wing.

By the time the 2004 primaries hit Michigan Lieberman had droppped out of the race and after thinking about it I figured what the hell and voted for him anyway. I'm glad I did. But where is the next generation of hawkish Democratis?

If there were more Democrats like Joe Lieberman, I'd still be one. I'm now registered as Independent after almost 40 years in the Democratic party. I can't be a republican either.

Ah yes, our dear friend Juan Cole. The "scholar" who blamed the gruesome death of the four security men in Falluja, former American soldiers all, on Israel's overly aggressive reply to "militants" that week.

Which, makes perfect sense, if that is the kind of lines of thought to which you already have a natural propensity.

And when that is the kind of deep thinking Juan Cole does on Iraq, I'm afraid it disqualifies my interest in the rest of his arsenal.

Moreover, I'm afraid I don't think of Murtha as much of a hawk. A decorated and honorable former member of the American military, yes, in spades. But having once served in the military does not qualify anyone, in itself, for being a hawk. In fact, if his recent speeches are meant to illuminate his thought patterns, he's anything but a hawk by intellectual disposition.

Maybe he once was a hawk and moved his position. Or maybe his natural tendency was never hawkish.

So the fact that the MSM dubbed him a hawk to increase the potency of the medicine he was proposing to the Bush Administration on Iraq leaves you with two possibilities.

Either the MSM really think that Murtha is a hawk, which shows you just how little understanding they have of the matter. Not surprising altogether, in that few of them have understanding or sympathy for the military.

Or that it was a cynical, coldly deliberated, ploy to manipulate American public opinion.

That does not mean, of course, that I think Iraq is a sunny vacationland, btw. I believe that Steven Vincent exposed many a scary error in our handling, and the British handling of post-war Iraq. There are certainly private Shi'ite militias, encouraged by our old friend al Sadr, exercising private revenge, as Steven Vincent's death, itself showed.

But, overall, I think the larger trend is in the right direction. And that is the trend that history will see.