Among politics-watchers (and the Giuliani campaign particularly) there’s a meme floating around that holds that Rudy Giuliani can overcome conservative resistance to his social liberalism and/or social issue flip-flops by emphasizing what I guess you’d call the leadership principle and his diehard support for War on Terrorism and the Iraq War.

That makes sense to the extent that most of Rudy’s potential Red state audience doesn’t know much about him beyond the 9/11 hagiography. And it makes more sense to the extent that that focus can separate the ‘War on Terror’ from the War in Iraq — something conservatives have never liked doing.

But there seems to be a basic problem built in to this idea. Do Republicans really want to go into 2008 with a presidential candidacy whose raison d’etre is diehard support for the Iraq War and President Bush’s version of the War on Terror, which it would inevitably be? That sounds like perilous political territory on multiple counts unless a lot changes over the next eighteen months.

Same candidate, totally different spin.

See how Rudy Guiliani’s campaign doctors planned to sell the candidate to New York City voters back in 1993 despite 450 pages of dirt on the guy.

Sens. Dodd (D-CT) and Menendez (D-NJ) to introduce bill banning torture and reinstituting habeas corpus.

I get asked this question at least once a day now and often more. And I keep answering individually. So let me try to address this in a post. Does Connecticut have a recall procedure that Nutmeg state voters can use to recall their faithless senator, Joe Lieberman?

No. They don’t.

In fact, as far as I know no state has such a law because it would be clearly unconstitutional. Members of Congress are federal officeholders and the federal constitution, not state law or state constitutions, defines the nature and term of their tenure.

So that’s it. No recall. No nuthin’.

The only thing to do about Joe Lieberman is elect more Democrats in 2008.

That could even be the 2008 slogan: Do it for Joe!

Today’s Must Read: McClatchy pokes more holes in the administration’s story of why seven federal prosecutors were purged last December.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack on the drumbeat for war against Iran …

QUESTION: I mean, Sean, sort of a follow-up on all these questions. In a general sense, the big (inaudible) at the moment we’ve seen, you know, cover of Newsweek, cover of Economist saying Iran could be next, a lot of speculation about military action. Can you give me any reaction to that?

MR. MCCORMACK: It seems to be the news media that is whipping up that storyline, not us.

Precious.

Finally! Real live Congressional debate on escalation!

In the House of Representatives, discussion of the Dems’ anti-“surge” resolution is underway.

In most of the press reports I’ve seen on the administration’s no-names-allowed press briefing on Iranian arms transfers to Iraq, reporters have noted skepticism about the administration’s credibility. But I’ve seen few press reports which specifically note what seems to be the biggest hole in the administration’s argument — namely, that Iran supports the Shi’a militias but most of our troops are being killed by Sunni insurgents. As Juan Cole notes, the numbers simply don’t add up. That doesn’t mean that Iranian made weapons aren’t killing American troops. What it suggests is that they’re getting into insurgent hands through black market channels rather than through the Iranian government itself. (Consider: How many weapons in Iraqi insurgent and militia hands do you think were made in the USA?)

Perhaps there’s some reason why this seeming gap in the administration argument isn’t really a gap at all. But it at least seems worth a lot more explanation. And I’m not seeing it.

Wilkes and Foggo indictments coming today, it seems. Remember, Foggo was the #3 at the CIA until the recent shake-up that also took out former CIA chief Porter Goss. Goss installed Foggo when President Bush appointed Goss. For more on Foggo, see the Foggo file at TPMmuckraker.

Romney: “Freedom will make the new American dream possible.”

No word on the old American dream.