Bloggers preview Tuesday's Lamont-Lieberman primary in Connecticut, fret about the shutdown of a BP oil field, and hammer Reuters over a doctored-photo scandal.

Joe's woes: In the Sunday Washington Post (Note: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.), columnist Robert Kagan explores just why Joe Lieberman's party has turned on him, concluding that Lieberman "stands condemned today because he didn't recant. He didn't say he was wrong" about the Iraq war. Bloggers interpret the piece and who wins if Lieberman loses Tuesday's primary.

Frendo contributor and Lieberman supporter Ryan Willers thinks Kagan hit the nail on the head: "I think he has this exactly right. And Ned Lamont, as a shrewed politician, is capitalizing on it. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with Lamont doing that; it is what happens in politics. Nevertheless, despite my disagreement with Lieberman on several issues (including Iraq), my vote will remain with him — whether he is a democratic or an independent."

Liberal political strategist and author Dave Sirota calls the neocons' defense of Lieberman "a desperate attempt to distract attention from Lieberman's open, brazen, disgusting, insulting lies about Iraq and Social Security. …This is what it all comes down to, folks. Washington lobbyists, Enron shills, and right-wing neoconservative ideologues in D.C. will keep showering Lieberman in cash and praise because Lieberman has served them so obediently over the years."

Loadedmouth.com's left-leaning contributor Sine.Qua.Non's dismisses Kagan as being "full of … hot air and little substance or mass," for his defense of Lieberman. "Kagan seem to think that all Democrats in Congress have dishonestly disavowed the war with Iraq, other than, guess who? Lieberman. He also believes the guy is being wrongly targeted. Lieberman is being targeted because he has been and always will be more of a Republican than a Democrat. Check his voting record."

Lieberman's decision to run as independent if he loses the primary will only help the GOP, predictsEunomia's conservative Daniel Larison: "No wonder the Republican 'Commentern' has been so enthusiastic for Lieberman–his kamikaze campaign provides the only opening they have for making actual gains in the year of the predicted electoral 'hurricane.' "

Read more about the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary here.

Reuters scandal: Reuters announced Monday it would end its relationship with freelance photographer Adnan Hajj, who had doctored photos from the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict. Righty bloggers are analyzing Hajj's work and leveling accusations of bias.

Score another coup for Little Green Footballs' Charles Johnson, who helped document the bogus nature of the "Rathergate" memos during the 2004 election. In his first post on the topic, he pointed out where Photoshop's clone tool had apparently been used to create more smoke than the original photo, depicting the results of an Israeli airstrike. In updates to the post, he questions other work by Hajj. Johnson follows up here, here, and here.

Righty Ed Driscoll has a lengthy and indispensable post tracking Reuters' attitude toward terrorists since Sept. 11. He does credit the news agency for handling the matter quickly: "They've got their work cut out for them, if they wish to regain the trust of many of their readers, in the era of the Blogosphere." At the OpinionJournal.com's Best of the Web, James Taranto points readers to the original photo and writes, "We don't mean to gainsay the difficulty of covering the news in an alien culture dominated by terror and tyranny. But too many news organizations are too willing to turn themselves into propaganda outlets."