Will Conservative Democrats Follow Graham’s Lead On Climate Policy?
Will Conservative Democrats Follow Graham’s Lead On Climate Policy?
Extensive coverage has been devoted to the fact that Lindsey Graham’s split on global warming and other issues highlights a rift in the Republican Party. While that’s true, another more important development has not been pursued: Graham’s departure from right-wing orthodoxy highlights the potential for conservative Democrats to follow in his footsteps.
Many conservative Democrats have questioned President Obama’s clean energy agenda. Now, a Republican is breaking with his party to talk sense. In a press conference yesterday with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the author of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Graham rebuked senators unwilling to address carbon pollution. Saying that he has “seen the effects of a warming planet,” Graham called for the United States to “lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution”:
The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.
Watch it:
Graham sounded more like Van Jones — the author of “The Green Collar Economy” who was branded by Glenn Beck as a “communist” — than many of his Democratic colleagues:
Max Baucus (D-MT): Montana, with our resource-based agriculture and tourism economies, cannot afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change. But we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of climate change legislation.
Evan Bayh (D-IN): Jobs should be our top priority and we shouldn’t do anything that detracts from that.
Robert Byrd (D-WV): I will actively oppose any bill that would harm the workers, families, industries, or our resource-based economy in West Virginia.
Byron Dorgan (D-ND): I just don’t think climate change is going to be on the floor this year. Trying to restart our economic engine and trying to get this country back to work — to me that is the most important issue.
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): I am opposed to the House passed cap-and-trade legislation, which in my view, picks winners and losers and places a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in Arkansas.
Claire McCaskill (D-MO): I hope we can fix cap and trade so it doesn’t unfairly punish businesses and families in coal dependent states like Missouri.
Ben Nelson (D-NE): I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home are going to be disadvantaged.
Jim Webb (D-VA): We can’t just start with things like emission standards at a time when we’re at a crisis with the entire national energy policy.
Do these Democrats agree with Lindsey Graham that our planet “is in peril“? Do they agree with Graham that “limiting carbon pollution is good for business”? Will conservative Democrats follow Sen. Graham’s embrace of the “new green economy” — and shouldn’t they be asked if they will?
- Comments
- 35
Beck Escalates Feud With Lindsey Graham: ‘I’m Going To Stick With The Angry People’
Beck Escalates Feud With Lindsey Graham: ‘I’m Going To Stick With The Angry People’
Glenn Beck escalated his feud with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on his Fox News show today. Recall, Graham has previously dismissed Beck as an entertainer who is “aligned with cynicism.” “Only in America can you make that much money crying,” Graham said of Beck. When Beck responded by saying Graham’s criticism was the “highest honor” he’s ever received, Graham reiterated his view that Beck “doesn’t represent the Republican Party.”
Today, Beck opened his show with a diatribe against Graham. Castigating the South Carolina Republican for saying that “we’re not going to be a party of angry white guys,” Beck retorted, “You gotta ask yourself, is the problem the angry white guys or is it the Obama-lite guys?” “Lindsey Graham, come on man, come on seriously, that’s it?” Beck continued. “Obama-lite! … It’s corrupt politicians that have been there too long telling us these things.”
As is his routine, Beck employed some bizarre props and metaphors to highlight his point. Today, he likened Lindsey Graham to a Diet Coke version of the real Coke and a non-alcoholic version of beer. “I’m drinking alcohol for the buzz,” Beck said, explaining that most consumers want the “real thing” and not a fake substitute. After meandering through his comedy performance, Beck concluded that he doesn’t want to be associated with a Republican Party if it includes Graham:
So thanks for the invite Lindsey, I appreciate it. Thanks for the gumball Mickey. And thanks for the hope and change, Barack. But I think I’m going to stick with the angry people over there. Because they’re only angry about you.
Watch it:
Beck also noted Arlen Specter, Tim Pawlenty, and John McCain as “Obama-lite” politicians that conservatives should reject.
Teabaggers Try To ‘Flush’ Graham Out Of GOP; Graham Responds: ‘If You Don’t Like’ Moderates, ‘You Can Leave’
Teabaggers Try To ‘Flush’ Graham Out Of GOP; Graham Responds: ‘If You Don’t Like’ Moderates, ‘You Can Leave’
In April, former Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) switched his party affiliation to caucus with the Democrats after being targeted by right-wing activists and others within the GOP. Shortly before his departure, an anti-Obama tea party rally focused its attention at Specter, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh demanded that Specter be “flushed” out of the party. A campaign with the theme “Benedict Arnold” subsequently harassed Specter for voting for the stimulus.
Now, after voting to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and expressing a willingness to build a compromise approach to clean energy legislation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appears to be the new target of tea party activists. At a Graham town hall in Greenville yesterday, activist Harry Kimball of “RINO HUNT” protested by constructing a display that depicted Graham, as well as moderates like Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), being flushed down a toilet:
KIMBALL: This is for every RINO who has failed to represent us. [...] [the toilet represents] flushing them, flushing them.
One attendee of the event asked the senator, “when are you going to announce that you are switching parties?” The question drew loud applause from the crowd. Graham defended himself, and denounced the influence of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on the Republican party:
GRAHAM: I’m going to grow this party, I’m not going to let it get [inaudible], I’m not going to let it be hijacked by Ron Paul. [...] I’m going to find people in Maine, Delaware, Illinois, other places–
AUDIENCE: Move there!
GRAHAM: That can win as Republicans, and I’m going to go up, and we’re going to move this party, and this country forward, and if you don’t like it, you can leave.
Watch it:
Angry attendees in the crowd interrupted Graham with cries of, “You’re a country club Republican,” “Sotomayor!,” and “You lie.” Outside the event, right-wing activist Julliet Kozak picketed the town hall with a sign decrying all “Unconstitutional Anti-Christ Socialist Federal Deficit Spending Programs.” She explained that she opposes what Graham is “doing in our Congress, what he’s doing to our country.”
Graham’s fellow South Carolina senator Jim DeMint (R) was an outspoken proponent of ejecting Specter from the Republican Party. DeMint told a conservative blogger Specter “cut our knees from under us.” He added that conservatives in the Senate need to aggressively “go after” Specter and other GOP moderates.
Graham: Beck is not the voice of conservatism.
Graham: Beck is not the voice of conservatism.
Last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) created waves when he dismissed the influence of Fox News host Glenn Beck, saying, “Only in America can you make that much money crying.” Beck commented on his radio show by responding, “Lindsey Graham hating my guts is probably the highest honor I’ve ever received. Judge me by my friends and judge me by my enemies. Thank you, Lindsey Graham.” Today on Fox News Sunday, host Brett Baier — standing in for Chris Wallace — stood up for his Fox colleague and asked Graham, “Are you saying that Glenn Beck is bad for America?” Graham rejected that characterization, but said that Beck did not speak for conservatives or Republicans:
GRAHAM: No, I’m not saying he’s bad for America. You got the freedom to watch him if you choose. He did a pretty good job on ACORN. What I am saying, he doesn’t represent the Republican Party. You can listen to him if you like. I choose not to because, quite frankly, I don’t — I don’t want to go down the road of thinking our best days are behind us. We need to act decisively.
People are genuinely upset with how much money we’re spending up here. But at the end of the day, when a person says he represents conservatism and that the country’s better off with Barack Obama than John McCain, that sort of ends the debate for me as to how much more I’m going to listen. So he has a right to say what he wants to say. In my view, it’s not the kind of political analysis that I buy into.
Watch it:
Transcript: More »
Beck: ‘Lindsey Graham hating my guts is probably the highest honor I’ve ever received.’
Beck: ‘Lindsey Graham hating my guts is probably the highest honor I’ve ever received.’
On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) mocked Glenn Beck, stating that “only in America can you make that much money crying.” Graham added that Beck is “not aligned with any party as far as I can tell. He’s aligned with cynicism. And there’s always been a market for cynicism.” On his radio show yesterday, Beck responded to Graham, saying that Graham’s disdain was “a badge of honor”:
BECK: And yet Lindsey Graham comes out and Lindsey Graham gives a talk yesterday to, I guess this is a bunch of Republicans he’s speaking to? There are a lot of things I’ll wear as a badge of honor. Lindsey Graham hating my guts is probably the highest honor I’ve ever received. Judge me by my friends and judge me by my enemies. Thank you, Lindsey Graham.
Listen here:
Sen. Graham takes jab at Glenn Beck: ‘Only in America can you make that much money crying.’
Sen. Graham takes jab at Glenn Beck: ‘Only in America can you make that much money crying.’
Today at the Washington Ideas Forum sponsored by the Atlantic, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sharply criticized “talk radio, MoveOn.org, the 24-hour news cycle” for the polarization in politics. He then specifically mentioned Fox News hosts Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck:
Can you imagine writing the Constitution — you know, O’Reilly says Ben Franklin’s giving in on something. Can you imagine having to do that in this environment? [Graham said]
Without missing a beat, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg next asked for Graham’s thoughts on Glenn Beck.
“Only in America can you make that much money crying,” Graham said.
Graham also claimed that Beck is “not aligned with any party as far as I can tell. He’s aligned with cynicism. And there’s always been a market for cynicism.” Watch it:
In recent weeks, there has been a conservative backlash against Beck. Right-wing radio host Mark Levin has called him “pathetic,” former Bush adviser Peter Wehner has said he’s “harmful to the conservative movement,” Rush Limbaugh characterized his role promoting the 9/12 march as “cheap and disingenuous,” and conservative pundit David Frum has warned conservatives against succumbing to Beck’s “mob rule.”
Lindsey Graham: Obama is not ‘a socialist,’ he’s ‘an American liberal.’
Lindsey Graham: Obama is not ‘a socialist,’ he’s ‘an American liberal.’
On Meet The Press yesterday, host David Gregory repeatedly pressed House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) on whether he believed “the President is a socialist.” After trying to dodge the question, Boehner eventually blurted out, “No!” On the same day, another prominent Republican also pushed back against the ridiculous claims of socialism being forwarded by people like RNC Chairman Michael Steele. In an interview with The Greenville News yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he “would say no” if someone asked him if Obama was a socialist:
Graham was quick to debunk accusations from some people that Obama is a socialist and not a U.S. citizen.
He saw the question coming a few words into it and responded: “If you asked me if the president of the United States is a socialist, I would say no. I think he’s an American liberal, that’s what I think he is. You know, Ted Kennedy was an American liberal, but we found ways to work together.” [...]
“I am not going to give into sentiments that I think degrade the office of the president and that degrade the debate and the culture of our country,” he said. “So if you come up to me calling the president a socialist, a Muslim, you’re talking to the wrong guy.”
Graham: Republicans select political appointees on the basis of race.
Graham: Republicans select political appointees on the basis of race.
Capping off a day of unusual candor, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) explained to right-wing affirmative action opponent Linda Chavez, a witness at today’s Sotomayor confirmation hearings, that Republicans routinely make hiring decisions on the basis of race. According to Graham, “politics is politics in the sense that I know that Republicans sit down and think, ‘ok, we’ve got some power now. Let’s make sure that we let the whole country know the Republican party is not just a party of short white guys.’” And then, in a comment perhaps reflecting why Graham is supporting Sotomayor, he added:
What I want to tell the country is that Republicans very much do sit down and think about political picks and appointments in a political sense to try to show that we’re a party that looks at all Americans and wants to give an opportunity. And that’s just life. And that’s not a bad thing.
Watch it:
Graham’s comments come after a surprisingly friendly exchange between himself and Sotomayor in which he told her that he believes that she is “not an activist.” In other words, it seems very likely that Graham will vote to put Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.
Lindsey Graham concludes that Sotomayor is not an ‘activist’ judge.
Lindsey Graham concludes that Sotomayor is not an ‘activist’ judge.
After Judge Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) joined with conservatives in declaring her an “activist” judge. “If I look at her philosophy, her legal philosophy, which I think is very activist in nature,” said Graham in May. But after three days of confirmation hearings, Graham appears to have changed his mind:
GRAHAM: And here’s what I will say about you. I don’t know how you’re going to come out on that case. Because I think fundamentally, judge, you’re able after all these years of being a judge to embrace a right that you may not want for yourself. To allow others to do things that are not comfortable to you, but for the group, they’re necessary. That is my hope for you. That’s what makes you, to me, more acceptable as a judge and not a activist. Because a activist would be a judge who would be chomping at the bit to use this wonderful opportunity to change America through the Supreme Court by taking their view of life and imposing it on the rest of us.
Watch it:
In his live-blog of the hearing, Ian Millhiser remarks that “Graham looks a whole lot like a ‘yes’ vote” following that exchange.
New Budget Estimate Of Public Plan Proves It Lowers Cost And Covers More Americans
New Budget Estimate Of Public Plan Proves It Lowers Cost And Covers More Americans
A couple of weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a preliminary score of the health care legislation under consideration in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The bill was estimated to cost $1 trillion over 10 years, while reducing the number of uninsured by “only” one-third. As many informed bloggers noted at the time, the cost estimate was incomplete because the legislation that the CBO reviewed did not contain language about a public health insurance plan or an employer mandate.
Nevertheless, Republicans seized on the opportunity to engage in merciless political attacks, citing the incomplete CBO score as proof that health care reform is not worth doing:
John McCain: “[The CBO estimate] should be a wake up call for all of us to scrap the current bill and start over in a true bipartisan fashion.”
John Boehner: “[T]he public option would cost over $1 trillion, and would cause 23 million Americans to lose their private health care coverage.”
Lindsey Graham: “The CBO estimates were a death blow to a government run health care plan.”
The HELP Committee has since added language for a public plan option to its legislation, as well as an employer mandate provision. The AP reports the new results:
The plan carries a 10-year price tag of slightly over $600 billion, and would lead toward an estimated 97 percent of all Americans having coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Chris Dodd said in a letter to other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. [...]
The [employer mandate] provision is also estimated to greatly reduce the number of workers whose employers would drop coverage, thus addressing a major concern noted by CBO when it reviewed the earlier proposals.
In other words, the addition of the public plan dramatically reduced the overall cost of the bill and ensured coverage of almost all Americans. So what excuses will McCain, Boehner, Graham, and other Republicans offer now? Their attacks were not only found to be baseless, but their concerns about the costs and coverage have also been addressed.
Scarborough Lambastes McCain And Graham On Iran: They’re ‘So Shortsighted I Find It Stunning’
Scarborough Lambastes McCain And Graham On Iran: They’re ‘So Shortsighted I Find It Stunning’
Since the disputed June 12 presidential election in Iran, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been routinely criticizing President Obama’s response to the crisis. Yesterday on CBS’ Face the Nation, McCain echoed the GOP’s party line, saying “the United States hasn’t done anything” and sought fervently to cast Obama’s actions as “tepid.” Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) demanded that Obama “lead the free world and not follow it.”
But this morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough broke ranks and called the senators’ criticism “an exercise in doing things that make us feel good about ourselves” while labeling it “outrageous.” Scarborough — called the “new face” of the GOP by Christopher Buckley — went on to say that those rebelling in Iran would be punished more severely if Obama were to follow McCain’s advice:
SCARBOROUGH: All we would do is undermine those people in the street, who the second that they are attached to the United States of America, the country after all that’s been known in Iran as the great Satan since 1979, we will undermine their cause … It’s so shortsighted I find it stunning. […]
What would John McCain and Lindsey Graham specifically have the president say? All of those people that are emailing in and telling me that I’m being liberal? Oh really? I’m being liberal? No I think it’s called restraint. Showing a little bit of restraint. Looking at the battlefield in front of you and not just running up Pickett’s Charge and getting gunned down. If you want to feel good about yourself — and you can only feel good about yourself by screaming about the evils of Iran — fine do that. But our leaders in Washington don’t need to do that because people will be routed in the street the second they are identified with the United States of America.
Watch it:
Despite McCain and Graham’s claims to the contrary, Obama has expressed U.S. disapproval of the Iranian government’s actions. Obama released a statement on Saturday condemning the violation of human rights while steering clear of the politics. In an interview with CBS’ Early Show this morning, Obama responded similarly to Scarborough, saying the U.S. has to guard against being used as a scapegoat by the Iranian regime:
“The last thing that I want to do,” the president said, “is to have the United States be a foil for — those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That’s what they do. That’s what we’ve already seen. We shouldn’t be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the — Iranian people are seeking to — let their voices be heard.
McCain and Graham are growing increasingly isolated, as Republicans in Congress and conservatives in the media endorse Obama’s measured response.
Will calls right-wing attacks on Obama’s Iran response ‘foolish criticism.’
Will calls right-wing attacks on Obama’s Iran response ‘foolish criticism.’
Since turmoil broke out in Iran over the country’s disputed elections last week, conservatives have been forcefully criticizing President Obama for not doing enough to intervene on the side of those protesting. Their criticism comes despite numerous expert opinions — even from Iranian human rights activists — that the U.S. should not meddle in the situation. This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) continued the attacks. “He’s been timid and passive more than i would like,” he said of Obama. Later on the program though, conservative columnist George Will called such criticism “foolish”:
WILL: The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don’t need that reinforced.
Watch it:
In her Wall Street Journal column yesterday, Peggy Noonan, another conservative columnist and former speechwriter for President Reagan, denounced the right-wing attacks, particularly those from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). “To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous,” she wrote, adding that “the ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week.”
Lieberman-Graham torture photo ban will be added to ‘every piece of legislation that comes down the pike.’
Lieberman-Graham torture photo ban will be added to ‘every piece of legislation that comes down the pike.’
Yesterday, Jane Hamsher reported that the detainee photo amendment sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was stripped from the war supplemental in committee. The amendment would have allowed the Obama administration to suppress any “photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained” after 9/11 by U.S. forces. This afternoon, Graham and Lieberman held a press conference to register their objections to dropping the measure and announce that they had “added our original legislation as an amendment to the FDA regulation of tobacco bill that’s on the floor right now”:
LIEBERMAN: [W]e’re going to vote against cloture on the bill, and I’m going to do everything I can to see if I can convince other Democrats to do that.
We’re just not going to roll over because some folks in the House don’t like this amendment. [W]e’re going to do everything we can to hold up the supplemental appropriations bill until we’re sure that this amendment prohibiting the release of these dangerous photographs is on that bill. And then we’ll continue to do everything we can to attach it to other legislation, to slow up the process.
Graham said the amendment was needed because “These photos, if they’re released, will be used by the enemy to incite violence as they walk down these streets.” A “senior Democratic aide” told the Weekly Standard that the two senators would “attach [the amendment] to every piece of legislation that comes down the pike.”
Graham On Torture: ‘I Don’t Think That These Techniques As A Whole Have Made Us Safer’
Graham On Torture: ‘I Don’t Think That These Techniques As A Whole Have Made Us Safer’
In yesterday’s Senate Judiciary subcommittee torture hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) lashed out at witnesses and questioned whether the hearing was “a political stunt,” contending that “it’s not really fair” to the Bush administration. He repeatedly emphasized that the “other side of the story” is that torture produced “good information.”
Later, however, Graham broke with the conservative line and candidly admitted that torture has not make the U.S. “safer.” Talking to reporter Spencer Ackerman after the hearing, Graham claimed that the interrogation program “saved lives,” but at the same time, he stated that torture didn’t “as a whole” result in greater U.S. security:
GRAHAM: Well, I’m just saying there’s information that was devised, was received from enhanced interrogation techniques that did tell us about what the enemy was up to and probably save lives. That’s the other side of the story. I don’t think that these techniques as a whole have made us safer, because of the problems we’ve had. We’ve got a new way of going forward.
“Let’s have interrogation techniques within our values, but let’s don’t tell the enemies exactly what they are,” Graham concluded. Watch it:
Graham did not specify what “problems” the U.S. has had because of torture, but the evidence is clear. Torture has led to the deaths of coalition troops, inflamed anti-American sentiment, and shattered the reputation of the U.S. Graham’s statement is a significant break from Vice President Cheney, who insisted on Sunday that torture “kept the nation safe for nearly eight years.”
Graham, a former JAG lawyer, has tried to walk a fine line in the torture debate. To his credit, he has been a frequent critic of the Bush administration’s interrogation program, saying that waterboarding is torture and forcefully criticizing Bush officials who have hedged on the topic. Yet he has also voted against banning waterboarding, tried to argue just yesterday that waterboarding was effective, and opposes efforts to investigate the Bush administration.
Graham: Since torture techniques have ’survived for about 500 years,’ ‘apparently they work.’
Graham: Since torture techniques have ’survived for about 500 years,’ ‘apparently they work.’
In today’s hearing on detainee interrogations, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) attempted to defend the Bush administration’s torture program. “Let’s have both sides of the story here,” Graham declared, saying there could be evidence that torture provided “good information.” Graham then made the puzzling claim that since torture has been used for half a millenium, it “apparently” is useful:
The Vice President is suggesting that there was good information obtained, and I’d like the committee to get that information. Let’s have both sides of the story here. I mean, one of the reasons these techniques have survived for about 500 years is apparently they work.
Former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan responded, “Because, sir, there’s a lot of people who don’t know how to interrogate, and it’s easier to hit somebody than outsmart them.” Watch it:
Graham Falsely Claims All Gitmo Detainees Are ‘Enemy Combatants,’ Says They Can Be Held ‘Forever’
Graham Falsely Claims All Gitmo Detainees Are ‘Enemy Combatants,’ Says They Can Be Held ‘Forever’
Last night on Fox News, host Greta Van Susteren and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were discussing President Obama’s plan to close the Guantanamo Bay terror detainee prison. During the segment, Graham — who, with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), had written a Wall Street Journal op-ed on the subject that day — argued that the military or the CIA, not the federal justice system, should determine which detainees represent a threat to the U.S.
Van Susteren noted that “we’re still holding people who haven’t done anything.” “No, that’s not true,” Graham said, adding that “every one of them” has “gone through a military board, and the military labeled them an enemy combatant.” According to Graham, “You can hold an enemy prisoner as long as the war is going on” or “forever,” as he later pointed out:
VAN SUSTEREN: Does anyone want them?
GRAHAM: Well, I don’t care. If we can’t give them to somebody else. My point is, Greta, if you’re a part of the enemy force, we can hold you forever.
Watch it:
Graham is simply wrong in claiming that all Gitmo detainees are “enemy combatants.” Last October, the Bush administration’s Justice Department declared that all 17 Chinese Muslim (Uighurs) prisoners at Guantanamo were no longer to be designated as such. One week later, a federal judge ordered that they be released “because the government provided no proof that they were enemy combatants or security risks.” Yet they still remain there today. In fact, as far back as 2003, the Pentagon concluded that they could be released.
Graham can justify his belief that terror detainees are outside the purview of civilian courts and thus can be held “forever” because he views combating terrorism as “a war,” one that can presumably carry on indefinitely because the concept of “terrorism” will never simply end. But the American criminal justice system is equipped to hold full legal trials while protecting classified evidence and state secrets. Indeed, as Attorney General Eric Holder noted, terror suspects deserve “due process rights that I think are consistent with who we are as Americans.”
Graham: ‘If we’re going to let the bloggers run the country, then the country’s best days are behind us.’
Graham: ‘If we’re going to let the bloggers run the country, then the country’s best days are behind us.’
After it was announced earlier this week that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) would replace Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) as the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, bloggers, including ThinkProgress, noted that Sessions had a record of racial insensitivity that stopped his appointment to the federal bench in 1986. Now, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is hitting back at the blogs:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Republicans would fight back hard if Democrats or liberal groups try to make the Supreme Court confirmation process about Sessions’ record, rather than about Obama’s nominee to replace Justice David Souter.
“If people try to go down that road, it’ll blow up in their face, because Jeff is a good guy,” Graham said. “My hope is that our Democratic colleagues — if you start listening to the bloggers — if we’re going to let the bloggers run the country, then the country’s best days are behind us.”
Two Days After Defending Waterboarding, Lieberman Now Claims He’s ‘Strongly Opposed’ To It
Two Days After Defending Waterboarding, Lieberman Now Claims He’s ‘Strongly Opposed’ To It
In a letter to President Obama today, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) asked him to resist prosecuting Bush administration officials who wrote legal memos authorizing torture. “Pursuing such prosecutions would, we believe, have serious negative effects,” wrote the three senators.
Acknowledging that the Office of Legal Counsel memos were “deeply flawed,” the three senators claim that they have always been “strongly opposed” to torturous interrogation tactics like waterboarding:
We disagree, however, with Administration statements suggesting that the lawyers who provided such counsel may now be open to prosecution. Some of the legal analysis included in the OLC memos released last week was, we believe, deeply flawed. We have also strongly opposed the overly coercive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that these memos deemed legal. We do not believe, however, that legal analysis should be criminalized, as proposals to prosecute government lawyers suggest.
The idea that Lieberman would sign his name to a letter claiming that he has always been “strongly opposed” to waterboarding is surprising. In fact, just two days ago, he told Fox News that in some situations “we ought to be able to use something like waterboarding“:
Q: First of all, is waterboarding torture?
LIEBERMAN: Well, I take a minority position on this. Most people think it’s definitely torture. The truth is, it has mostly a psychological impact on people. It’s a terrible thing to do. … I want the president of the United States in a given circumstance where we believe somebody we’ve got in our control may have information that could help us stop an attack, an imminent attack on the United States like 9/11 or, god forbid, worse, we ought to be able to use something like waterboarding.
Watch it:
In the past, Lieberman has defended the use of waterboarding in select situations. “You want to be able to use emergency tech to try to get the information out of that person,” said Lieberman, adding that “it is not like putting burning coals on people’s bodies. The person is in no real danger. The impact is psychological.”
Petraeus ‘Frustrated’ By Admirers Lindsey Graham And John McCain’s Opposition To Chris Hill
Petraeus ‘Frustrated’ By Admirers Lindsey Graham And John McCain’s Opposition To Chris Hill
Earlier this month, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced their opposition to the nomination of Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. “While Mr. Hill is a talented diplomat who has served our country for many years, his selection for this post concerns us,” said the two senators in a statement. The McCain/Graham statement was the first shot fired by “a cadre of Senate Republicans” aiming to sink Hill’s nomination.
But the senators’ effort to derail Hill took a major hit today when Foreign Policy’s Laura Rozen reported that “Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, top Iraq commander Gen. Raymond Odierno, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are frustrated by the delay in getting a U.S. ambassador confirmed and into place in Iraq.” Though Rozen’s initial report was based on anonymous sources, she later updated with an on the record statement from the Pentagon:
The U.S. military chief spokesman Geoff Morrell told The Cable Thursday: “Generals Odierno and Petraeus have come out very publicly and very forcefully in support of Amb. Hill’s nomination. I know they support it. They know him from previous assignments, they like him, they believe he is well suited to the job and are anxiously awaiting his confirmation because they do need help, frankly. … With regards to [Senate] members who have issue with him, I would say this,” Morrell added. “We appreciate their steadfast support of the Iraq mission. But you can’t be bullish in support of that mission and not send an ambassador in a timely fashion.”
The pushback from Petraeus must be especially stinging considering the high esteem that senators like Graham and McCain have for the general:
– Asked in August to name “the three wisest people” who he “would rely on heavily in an administration,” McCain replied, “First one, I think, would be General David Petraeus, one of the great military leaders in American history.”
– “Thank God for General Petraeus, one of the great generals in American history,” said McCain in April 2008.
–On Meet The Press in July 2007, Graham spoke of Petraeus as though he “could see past obstacles that blocked ordinary men.” “I will not vote for anything until generous—General Petraeus passes on it,” said Graham.
– “If I could promote you to five stars, I would,” said Graham when Petraeus testified before Congress last April. “I cannot tell you how proud I am of both of you,” he said to Petraeus and Ryan Crocker.
Former McCain aide Michael Goldfarb writes at the Weekly Standard that Petraeus and Odierno’s support for Hill deals “a serious blow to the campaign against his appointment.”
Graham criticizes Obama for earmarks, but defends his own.
Graham criticizes Obama for earmarks, but defends his own.
On Meet the Press this morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) urged President Obama to veto the $410 billion FY09 omnibus budget because it has too many earmarks. Host David Gregory quickly pointed out that Graham’s friend and colleague, John McCain, has been highlighting Graham’s own $950,000 earmark for a convention center in Myrtle Beach, SC. Graham then pivoted from attacking earmarks to defending them:
“I voted to take all earmarks out, but I will come back in the new process and put that back in,” Graham insisted, saying that the convention center is important to stimulate the local economy. “I think I should have the ability as a United States senator to direct money back to my state as long as it’s transparent and it makes sense.”
Watch it:
Congress is expected to approve the omnibus appropriations bill this week.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll