Joe Lieberman proved he can get foreign policy and feminism wrong at the same time on Morning Joe today:

Gail Collins noted this morning the Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has "reached a point in his public career when every single thing he does, including talking about his grandparents, is irritating."

That's true, but some things are clearly more irritating than others.

Take this morning, for example.

During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) continued to insist that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction even though none were ever found after the invasion of Iraq.

The senator, retiring his seat in 2012, also said that despite the enormous cost to the U.S. in blood, prestige and treasure he does not regret his vote for war and would do it all over again.

This was an astounding appearance. Lieberman insisted the "most official and comprehensive report" proved Saddam Hussein was developing WMD, and that the regime was "beginning really tactically to support the terrorist movements that had attacked us on 9/11 and today."

None of this is connected to reality in any substantive way. Every available shred of evidence makes clear that Saddam's regime had nothing to do with al Qaeda, and for Lieberman to still be suggesting otherwise is disgraceful. For that matter, the notion that even the most confused observer would still believe that Iraq was developing WMD, and that this somehow justifies the invasion, is breathtaking.

As part of the same MSNBC segment, Arianna Huffington asked Lieberman to substantiate his claim about Saddam Hussein was working on weapons of mass destruction, a claim even George W. Bush abandoned. The senator replied, "I'm basing it on the so-called Duelfer Report. Charles D-U-E-L-F-E-R conducted the most comprehensive report on behalf of our government."

When Huffington said there's nothing in the Duelfer Report to bolster Lieberman's conclusions, the senator replied, "I don't think you've read it, sweetheart."

I find it nothing short of remarkable that a United States senator in 2011 would be so condescending as to call a woman "sweetheart" on national television. In context, Huffington was calling Lieberman out on his transparent falsehoods, which no doubt irritated him, but frankly, I don't care what the context was. Huffington deserves an apology.

Agreed. And as Steve and the Huffington Post pointed out as well, Lieberman doesn't know what he's talking about -- Joe Lieberman Insists Iraq Was Developing WMDs Despite No Evidence. And good for her for saying this to Lieberman's face:

HUFFINGTON: Well, based on this completely unfounded assumption, I sincerely hope for the sake of the country that you do not become Secretary of Defense.

Amen sister.