Earlier this week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed blasting the Democratic party — the “party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy” — for no longer being “unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American.” He wrote that Democrats “should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own.”

Today, Sen. Joe Biden (D-RI) appeared on various morning talk shows and sharply criticized the notion that progressives are weak on national security. On MSNBC he responded to Lieberman, stating, “[C]an you imagine Franklin Roosevelt, can you imagine President Truman, can you imagine President Kennedy conducting the kind of policy this outfit has?” From the exchange:

This administration is the worst administration in American foreign policy in modern history, maybe ever. The idea that they are competent to continue to conduct our foreign policy, to make us more secure and make Israel secure, is preposterous.

Ever since they got in office the only thing on the march in the Middle East has not been freedom, it’s been Iran. Every single thing they’ve touched has been a near disaster.

Watch it:

Biden also responded to Lieberman in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, where he added that the right wing’s national security policies actually betray doubt about U.S. capabilities:

The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word “no” from our vocabulary?

It’s amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.

In his interview on NBC’s Today Show, Biden acknowledged that some members of the Democratic party are strongly anti-war, but added, “20 percent of the Republican Party is probably ready to go to war on any circumstance.”

Yesterday, the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg welcomed President Bush as the guest speaker for the Division Review ceremony, marking the end of All American Week. Predictably, the most unpopular president in American history used his speech to the troops and their families as another opportunity to buttress his legacy and defend the disastrous decision to invade Iraq by — what else? — waving the bloody shirt of 9/11.

VetVoice’s Rock Richard, himself a member of the 82nd Airborne, attended the ceremony and found the president’s remarks extremely inappropriate. “Six and a half years after the September 11th attacks,” Richard writes, and “the President is still linking those attacks to Iraq and Iraq to Osama bin Laden…This is just too ridiculous“:

Given the opportunity to thank honorable men and women for their service to their country, the President, using a captive back drop of American Soldiers seized the opportunity to make political demands of the Senate, make ridiculous errant arguments for our entry to the Iraq war, and link Iraq to Osama bin Laden and the September 11th attacks. I must say, in my entire career, of all the military functions I’ve attended, not a single one has disgusted me as much as I was today when President Bush finally ended his remarks.

Among the various discredited claims which the president continued to indulge is the idea that, by invading Iraq, the United States has “taken the battle to the terrorists abroad — so we do not have to face them here at home.”

It is far past time that the president and his supporters abandoned this ridiculous and reprehensible talking point. First, and most obviously, because it’s been long established that “the terrorists” weren’t in Iraq in any real sense until after the U.S. invaded and created the chaos which “the terrorists” subsequently exploited. Secondly, and more profoundly, “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here” is simply another way of saying that America has chosen to turn the towns, streets and homes of Iraq into battlefields, to use the Iraqi people themselves as bait for “the terrorists” and as cannon fodder in an illusory “war on terror.”

Yesterday, the House passed the Defense Authorization bill, which prescribes spending amounts for the military activities.

The bill includes a section to raise the pay for the soldiers by 3.9 percent – an increase of 0.5 percent over the Bush administration’s request. In a “Statement of Administration Policy” released yesterday, the White House asserts that it “strongly opposes” the pay increase authorized by Congress:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the 0.5 percent increase in troop pay would mean spending just an extra $324 million in 2009:

At the same time it is strongly opposing a slight increase in pay for the troops, the Bush administration is asking for hundreds of billions more for war. To put it in all in context, the White House wants $165 billion to continue fighting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this year, but refuses to spend 0.2 percent of that amount ($324 million) to provide the troops a slight pay raise.

Despite his opposition to a pay increase, President Bush continues to demagogue the issue of support for the troops, telling soldiers at Ft. Drum yesterday that Congress is to blame for not having passed “a responsible war funding bill.” Of course, he didn’t tell that troops that by “responsible,” he means he wants a bill that gives them less pay.

In a new interview with Wired, Chuck Fish, a full-time lawyer for Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign, says that the senator opposes immunity for telecoms that aided the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program — unless they first offer a heartfelt apology for their actions:

As president, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain would not support immunity for the telecoms that aided the Bush administration’s warrantless spying program, unless there were revealing Congressional hearings and heartfelt repentance from those telephone and internet companies, a campaign surrogate said Wednesday. [...]

“First, we need to be explicit we are not talking about granting indulgences,” Fish said, clarifying that he meant forgiveness must be matched with repentance.

Basically, McCain wants to give telecoms nothing more than a slap on the wrist. If they publicly say they’re very sorry for what they did, all can be forgiven.

The telecoms have not yet offered the American public any apologies, and it doesn’t seem like they’re doing any repenting. Yet McCain has already voted for immunity. In fact, in February he said it was “disgraceful” that Congress had not yet approved a bill expanding the Bush administration’s wiretapping powers and granting immunity to telecoms:

Isn’t it embarrassing — worse than embarrassing — when the Congress and the House of Representatives of the United States of America goes out on recess, when we have not addressed this incredible threat of the intelligence capabilities of this country to monitor the communications of bad people? It’s disgraceful. It’s disgraceful!

In the interview with Wired, Fish acknowledged McCain’s pro-immunity votes, saying that they were “complicated.” In reality, it’s not that complicated: McCain is willing to give telecoms immunity with or without any repentance and congressional hearings.

(HT: mcjoan)