1. Lieberman's faith guides his politics. Not true. Take for example Lieberman's votes on abortion-related issues: consistently pro-choice despite his religious convictions against abortion. He even opposed the confirmation of Samuel Alito out of a suspicion (likely correct, but still it wasn't proven) that Alito would vote to chip away at abortion rights. On gay rights, Lieberman has consistently voted in favour of gay rights and against gay marriage despite religious convictions that lead many others to do the opposite, especially on gay marriage.

   Sure he takes some positions that align with his religious beliefs (e.g. right to die), but it's not at all clear that those few instances are soley religiously-motived. Lieberman bucks religion enough that it seems clear that he doesn't mix religion with politics.

2. That Lieberman thinks that it is unpatriotic to question the commander-in-chief during wartime. Lieberman has been a very strong critic of many of Bush's warfighting policies, especially his policies to secure Iraq. Lieberman agrees with Bush on a mere two things concerning the Iraq War: first that it was the right thing to do, and second, that a pull-out of troops before Iraq is stabilized is a huge mistake.

   Lieberman has said that it is crass for opponents of Bush to change their opinions on Bush out of crass political purpose. That is, you shouldn't call for a pull-out from Iraq simply because it is good politics, but rather because you believe that it is the principled thing to do. He believes (and I agree) that most Democrats who call for a pull-out do so out of crass political opportunity (and please not, I was an opponent of the Iraq War). For example:

   I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

   The only thing Lieberman has ever said that comes close to opposing criticism of the commander-in-chief is unpatriotic is his claim that doing so undermines the U.S.'s ability to stabilize Iraq and emerge from the war successfully:

   With the consequences of victory or defeat in Iraq so large for our future safety, and liberty; and with the lives of 160,000 Americans in uniform on the line there everyday, it is urgent that all of us who want to complete our mission successfully and do not favor an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal put the national goals we hold in common ahead of the party labels that too often divide us.

   I recall here the wisdom of Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, who served our country during World War II and the beginning of the Cold War. Stimson said that sometimes the best way to make a person trustworthy is to trust him. There is wisdom there. It is time that America’s leaders, in the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who agree on our goals in Iraq but disagree on tactics to start trusting each other again so that we can work together again. The distrust is deep and I know it will be difficult to overcome, but history will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust and join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq.

   It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

   It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war.

   It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism. To encourage that new American partnership, I propose that the President and the leadership of Congress establish a bipartisan Victory in Iraq Working Group, composed of members of both parties in Congress and high ranking national security officials of the Bush Administration. This group would meet regularly, I would hope at least weekly, to discuss conditions and progress on the ground in Iraq and ways to alter or improve our strategy for victory. It would carry forward the cooperative spirit of the Warner-Levin amendment which recently passed the Senate. In our form of government, it would be one of the closet structures we could create to replicate a unity government or a war cabinet that exists in other democratic systems.

   I think this is much more nuanced than "if you criticize the commander-in-chief, you are a terrorist!"

UPDATE: Steve Smith responds to this in an update to his original post. I think Steve agrees that Lieberman's record on mixing religion with politics isn't clear cut at all. As for criticism of the commander-in-chief, I think that all Lieberman has said is that it "undermines the credibility of the presidency" which it clearly does. When that phrase is read in the context of his larger statement, all Lieberman is doing is cautioning both sides from unnecessarily politicizing the conduct of the Iraq War, noting that if the Democrats do so, they cost is that they undermine the presidency. That is simply a call for level-headedness and recognition of the cost-benefit of unnecessarily attacking the President instead of trying to work through the problem. Specifically, he only calls for this bipartisanship amongst those who support Bush's general aims in Iraq. He doesn't tell those who oppose the war or Bush to stop criticizing Bush. All he is saying is that those who agree with Bush in the broad strokes should stop exaggerating their opposition for the sake of crass political gain and instead focus on achieving their goals in a bipartisan manner. Note these quotes from that statement:

it is urgent that all of us who want to complete our mission successfully and do not favor an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal put the national goals we hold in common ahead of the party labels that too often divide us.

It is time that America’s leaders, in the White House and Congress, Republicans and Democrats, who agree on our goals in Iraq but disagree on tactics to start trusting each other again so that we can work together again.

He implies that three years from now, when there is an election for President, will be the time to drag out the crass politics. But for now, the U.S. is stuck with Bush and Democrats who agree with Bush's goals in Iraq should work constructively with Bush.