I'd like to bring up a few facts about Iraq as we ponder Lieberman's fate:
Dave Phillips, a State Department analyst for the original "plan" for a new Iraq, has stated that the Pentagon never wanted democracy, they wanted Chalabi, and then Alawi, both US intelligence assets.
General Garner, the first US "governor" of Iraq, was fired in part for his support of early elections. He didn't support foisting a business plan on Iraq.
At the same time, Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric was demanding elections.
Bremer, the second US governor, had veto power over the initial draft of a constitution by the US appointed governing council. A fan of democracy, you say? He also did everything he could to take de facto control of Iraq's government after the US "gave" sovereignty to Iraq.
The US removed the first Prime Minister, al-Jafaari.
At the same time, Bush funneled money to favored candidates (hardly strikes me as a policy of "letting the Iraqi people decide their fate").
The US ambassador vetted candidates in the recent election.
In short, the idea that power-hungry politicos like Shrub and his lackey Lieberman will bring democracy to any place is ludicrous. Prior support for the war must be a litmus test for any candidate at any level: if you supported it, you were wrong and you don't belong in politics.