Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster House Bill: The Public Option Is ‘Unnecessary’
Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster House Bill: The Public Option Is ‘Unnecessary’
This morning on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) about the House’s historic passage of health care legislation last night. Lieberman said that as a “matter of conscience,” he will join a Republican filibuster if a public option — which has supposedly been put forward “by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance” — is also included in the bill that goes before the Senate:
LIEBERMAN: A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I’m convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.
But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt — $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.
WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a “no” vote in the Senate?
LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.
Watch it:
Late last month, Lieberman told reporters that he was planning to filibuster a public option. But a few days later, the Hill reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office was confident Lieberman would “vote with Democrats in the necessary procedural vote to end debate, perhaps with intentions to change the bill.” Today, Lieberman made it clear where he stands.
It isn’t really Lieberman’s “conscience” that is driving him to oppose the public option — more likely it’s his ego (since he told reporters that he likes feeling “relevant“). After all, Lieberman opposed the Senate Finance Committee bill even though it didn’t have a public option, and in 1994, his “conscience” told him that the filibuster was “unfair” and shouldn’t be used to block major legislation. He has also asserted that the public option would raise premiums and increase the debt, even though the Congressional Budget Office has disputed those claims. Furthermore, 60 percent of his constituents support a public option, but Lieberman has dismissed them as just being “confused.”
Transcript: More »
- Comments
- 118
Lieberman Would Prefer ‘Nothing’ To Health Care Reform With A Public Option
Lieberman Would Prefer ‘Nothing’ To Health Care Reform With A Public Option
For months now, media critics like Media Matters’ Jamison Foser have pointed out that the press have often demonstrated a double standard when questioning opponents and proponents of the public option, only asking advocates about whether they think it is “better to have nothing than to have a plan that does not include the public option.” On CBS’ Face The Nation today, however, host Bob Schieffer put the question to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who claims that he is “all for health care reform, but is threatening to join a Republican filibuster to stop any reform bill that has a public option.
“But wouldn’t that mean that you might wind up with nothing instead of something?” asked Schieffer. Lieberman responded by saying that supporters of the public option are “stopping us from getting something done” because they’re making the option “the litmus test.” Pressed again by Schieffer, Lieberman admitted that he would prefer “nothing”:
SCHIEFFER: But is what you’re also saying is that nothing is better than a government health insurance, or a health insurance reform that includes a public option? Nothing is better than that?
LIEBERMAN: Well, the truth is that nothing is better than that because I think we ought to follow, if I may, the doctor’s oath in Congress as we deal with health care reform, do no harm.
To support his claim that the public option would do harm, Lieberman said that the Congressional Budget Office found that under the House’s health care plan, premiums for the public option would be higher than the average premium in private plans in the exchange. But as TPMDC’s Brian Beutler reported, this is actually an argument for a more robust public option. Watch it:
In his discussion with Schieffer, Lieberman acted as though the public option was the only thing stopping him from supporting health care reform. But this ignores the fact that Lieberman opposed the Baucus bill last month, which did not contain a public option. Apparently, Lieberman truly just wants “nothing” when it comes to health care reform.
Lieberman on his willingness to derail health care reform: ‘I feel relevant.’
Lieberman on his willingness to derail health care reform: ‘I feel relevant.’
After he announced his willingness to filibuster health care reform that includes a public option, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) defended his position by arguing that if the public option paid lower reimbursement rates than private insurers, medical providers would shift costs to Americans with private coverage. He also called the proposed plan “a new entitlement program.” As ThinkProgress and others have pointed out, Lieberman either doesn’t understand the details of the public option proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) or he is misrepresenting them. But in a conference call with Connecticut reporters yesterday, Lieberman claimed that it is the more than 60 percent of state residents that back a government-run insurance option that are confused:
What about the more than 60 percent of state residents that back a government-run insurance option, according to a Quinnipiac University poll last month?
Some of those respondents are confused about what such a plan entails, Lieberman said. And he added, “you can’t make a decision like this based on polling,” he said. Ultimately, he he said he has to do “what I think is right and hope in the end the people of Connecticut will respect me for that.”
Describing how his openness to derailing reform affected his role in the health care debate, Lieberman told the reporters, “I feel relevant.”
Lieberman in 1994: Filibuster is ‘unfair’ and it isn’t ‘right’ to use it to obstruct major legislation.
Lieberman in 1994: Filibuster is ‘unfair’ and it isn’t ‘right’ to use it to obstruct major legislation.
In recent days, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has raised the ire of health care advocates by threatening to filibuster Senate health care legislation unless the public option is removed from it, a move that was a boon to the stock prices of major health insurance companies. Lieberman was singing a different tune in 1994, however. At that time Lieberman, a freshman senator, was working with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) to introduce legislation that would drastically weaken the power of the filiibuster. HuffPost’s Sam Stein recalls that the Connecticut senator said it was “unfair” to use the filibuster to threaten major legislation and argued it isn’t “right” to use it to obstruct progress:
“The whole process of individual senators being able to hold up legislation, which in a sense is an extension of the filibuster because the hold has been understood in one way to be a threat to filibuster — it’s just unfair.”
“I’m very proud to be standing here with Tom [Harkin] as two Democrats saying that we’re going to begin this fight, because we’ve just been stung by the filibuster for a period of years, and even though the tables have now turned, it doesn’t make it right for us to use this instrument that we so vilified.”
Lieberman plans to campaign for Republicans in 2010.
Lieberman plans to campaign for Republicans in 2010.
After joining with Republicans this week in a promise to filibuster health reform if a public option is included, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) tells ABC News that he plans on campaigning for some GOP candidates in the 2010 elections:
I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the elections in 2010. I’m going to call them as I see them.
There’s a hard core of partisan, passionate, hardcore Republicans. There’s a hard core of partisan Democrats on the other side. And in between is the larger group, which is people who really want to see the right thing done, or want something good done for this country and them — and that means, sometimes, the better choice is somebody who’s not a Democrat.
Lieberman also said it remains an “open question” whether he will seek the Democratic nomination when he runs for re-election in 2012. Last month, Lieberman also joked that he may run as a Republican. In September 2008, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter — who was then still a member of the GOP — ironically said that Lieberman was “practically” voting as a Republican already and should just switch parties.
Joe Lieberman is afraid to debate Rachel Maddow on health reform.
Joe Lieberman is afraid to debate Rachel Maddow on health reform.
For the past couple of nights on her MSNBC show, Rachel Maddow has skewered Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for his stated willingness to filibuster health reform. Decrying his “demonstrably and obviously untrue arguments” about the public option, Maddow told her audience last night that Lieberman could end up being “the reason we won’t get health reform if we don’t get health reform.” For his part, Lieberman appears afraid of defending his views to Maddow’s face. Last night, Maddow reported:
I also want to tell our viewers that we invited Senator Lieberman to come onto this show tonight. His office did not even bother to respond to our requests.
Senator Lieberman, you should know you have an open invitation — as you long have had — to come on this show. I promise you will get a fair shake. Actually, at this point, I promise to not only buy you a shake, I will buy you a cookie if you come on this show.
Watch it:
Lieberman Lies To Justify Health Care Filibustering: The Public Option Will Raise Premiums And Increase The Debt
Lieberman Lies To Justify Health Care Filibustering: The Public Option Will Raise Premiums And Increase The Debt
This afternoon, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) appeared on Fox News to defend his intention to filibuster any health care reform bill that includes a national public option. Lieberman argued that a public plan would “stifle” the economic recovery and increase “the debt.” “It’s just unnecessary,” Lieberman said. The public option is “a new entitlement program and the taxpayers and the premium-payers are going to end up paying for it, or else the debt will go higher.”
Responding to proponents of the public plan who argue that it would actually lower costs, Lieberman insisted that if the public option paid lower reimbursement rates than private insurers, medical providers would shift costs to Americans with private coverage:
LIEBERMAN: If the public option, the government run health insurance company negotiates hard to lower the reimbursement — the money it’s paying to hospitals, doctors — they’re [providers] going to have to get that money somewhere. And where they’re going to get it is from the 200 million Americans who today have private health insurance. Premiums will go up. It’s exactly what’s happened with Medicare and Medicaid. [...]
When people hear public option, I think they think it’s for free. It’s not for free. Somebody is going to have to pay for it and you can bet it’s going to be the taxpayers and the people who pay health insurance premiums now.
Watch it:
Contrary to Lieberman’s claims, the public option envisioned by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would be required to compete on a level playing field with private insurers and charge premiums “in an amount sufficient to cover expected costs.” Instead of stifling the “economic recovery” and increasing “the debt,” the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the self-sustaining public option (similar to the one envisioned by Reid) could actually save the government money and slightly lower premiums.
Like Lieberman, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) — the insurance industry’s lobby — and the Business Roundtable have also argued that a public option that reimburses providers at lower rates than private payers would force providers to raise costs for Americans with private coverage in order to make-up the difference. MedPAC, the Congressional Budget Office, and numerous actuarial studies dispute the insurers’ claims.
These critics confuse cost shifts with price differentials. Economists point out that “price differentials are not necessarily the recouping of losses from one payer by overcharging another”; providers often “charge different prices to different market segments” to maximize profits, not to shift costs. MedPAC has concluded that “hospitals that are forced to run efficiently are adequately funded by Medicare payments. Therefore, increasing Medicare reimbursements to hospitals would not reduce rates providers charge to private insurers.” The research suggests that hospitals “are raising prices when they have the market power to do so,” not because they are reimbursed at Medicare rates.
Insurance Stocks Plunged As Reid Announced Public Option, Spiked After Lieberman Vowed To Filibuster It
Insurance Stocks Plunged As Reid Announced Public Option, Spiked After Lieberman Vowed To Filibuster It
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that he would be including a version of the public option (with a state opt-out provision) in the Senate’s final health care bill. Although all of the details of the public plan are yet to be determined, progressives cheered the move. As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) admitted, without all the pressure that progressives in and out of Congress put on legislators, it is unlikely there would have been a public option included in Reid’s final bill.
Yet this afternoon, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) broke with the Democratic caucus that he is a member of and vowed to join a Republican-led filibuster if the public option is not removed from the bill. In response, insurance company stocks — which plummeted Monday as Reid made his announcement — shot up after Lieberman made his announcement around 1:30 pm:
Lieberman’s opposition to the public option puts him completely out of step with Connecticut voters. As this polling from 538.com’s Nate Silver shows, voters in every single one of Connecticut’s congressional districts favor the inclusion of a public option in health care legislation by wide margins. The stated reason for Lieberman’s opposition to the public option — that it would increase the debt and create another entitlement — is misplaced. As ThinkProgress has noted before, the public option would be self-sustaining and would cut the deficit.
Insurance giant Aetna, represented by the blue line above, fared the best among all of the health insurance companies. Aetna is based in Hartford, CT. It is also the tenth largest single private contributor to Lieberman’s re-election committee.
Lieberman Says He’ll Filibuster Health Care Reform If Public Option Remains
Lieberman Says He’ll Filibuster Health Care Reform If Public Option Remains
Earlier this month, when blogger-activist Mike Stark asked Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) if his opposition to the public option meant that he would filibuster a health care reform bill that included one, Lieberman was non-committal, saying “we’ll see” while also warning that there’s a “danger in doing too much.”
In remarks to reporters today, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) moved closer to siding with Republicans and actively blocking reform. Lieberman gave a wishy-washy response, stating that while he was “inclined” to vote to allow health care reform legislation to be debated on the Senate floor, he would “vote against cloture” if “the bill stays as it is now.” TPMDC has Lieberman’s comments:
“I told Senator Reid that I’m strongly inclined — I haven’t totally decided, but I’m strongly inclined — to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don’t support the bill that he’s bringing together because it’s important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill.”
Lieberman claims that he wants to “vote for health care reform this year” and that the public option is a sticking point for him. But he also opposed the Baucus bill, which did not contain a public option. Last week, he told NPR, “If I decide in the end the bill that is about to leave the Senate is gonna do more harm than good, then I won’t vote for cloture at that point.”
ThinkProgress previously produced a report titled “Joe Lieberman: The Progressive Who Lost His Way.” View it here.
Echoing Insurance Industry, Lieberman Says He Doesn’t Support Baucus Bill
Echoing Insurance Industry, Lieberman Says He Doesn’t Support Baucus Bill
In August, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told CNN that he believed it was the wrong time for President Obama and Congress to attempt health care reform. “I’m afraid we’ve got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy is out of recession,” said Lieberman. “There’s no reason we have to do it all now.”
Asked by radio host Don Imus today what aspects of the Senate Finance Committee’s health care bill he supported, Lieberman struck a negative tone, saying, “I’m concerned that there’s a danger that we’re trying to do too much”:
LIEBERMAN: I’ve been saying for a couple of months now that I’m concerned, that I’m concerned that there’s a danger that we’re trying to do too much here and the president is trying to do two good things. But doing them at once in the middle of a recession may be hard to pull off. And the two good things are to bend the cost of health care down by changing a lot of the ways health care is delivered. The second thing is to cover some of the people, millions of people, who are not covered with insurance. So, this puts us in the position where you say, on the one hand, what we’re about to do in adopting health care reform will, will reduce the cost of health insurance from what it would otherwise be and the other hand you say, oh incidentally, we’re going to raise your taxes or cut your Medicare to the tune of $900 billion or a trillion. And people are beginning to think that maybe they’d do better holding on to what they have now.
Lieberman added that he thinks “we should really focus on what’s being called health care delivery reform.” Asked later by Imus if he specifically supported Sen. Max Baucus’ (D-MT) health care reform bill, Lieberman said, “no”:
IMUS: Do you support the Baucus bill?
LIEBERMAN: Not, not, no. I mean, not the way it is now.
IMUS: Ok, what about it don’t you like?
LIEBERMAN: Well, here’s my concern, as I watch the way it took shape. And it goes back to these two things we’re trying to do at once. I’m afraid that in the end, the Baucus bill is actually going to raise the price of insurance for most of the people in the country because most of the people in our country have health insurance, either private or Medicare or Medicaid or veteran’s benefits.
Watch it:
Though Lieberman said he didn’t necessarily “buy” the “exact numbers” released yesterday by the insurance industry, he supported their disingenuous argument that reform will increase insurance premiums for all Americans. “You don’t have to be an economist to figure out that if you raise people’s taxes, the company’s taxes by three or four hundred billion dollars, they’re not going to eat it themselves. They’re going to pass it on.”
The Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky rebuts Lieberman and the insurance industry’s argument about increased insurance premiums here.
Lieberman jokes about running in 2012 as a Republican.
Lieberman jokes about running in 2012 as a Republican.
This morning, Politico reported on how some Democratic senators are already preparing for their reelection efforts in 2012, “boosting their campaign coffers, raising millions for an election that is still 37 months away.” In an interview, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) joked that he could potentially run as a Republican:
Several Senate Democrats up in 2012 have already joined the million-dollar club, including Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Bill Nelson of Florida, Dianne Feinstein of California and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, as well as independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who caucuses with Senate Democrats. Several more are expected to surpass the million-dollar mark when the latest round of campaign finance reports is released Oct. 15.
Lieberman, who had $1.4 million through June 30, said he was unsure whether he would run in 2012 as a Democrat or an independent.
“Or a Republican,” Lieberman jokingly added. “I have all sorts of options.”
Some Democrats might not find Lieberman’s joke very funny. After Lieberman bucked his party and supported Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for president — even delivering a speech at the Republican National Convention — some of his Senate colleagues wanted him to be punished, with some suggesting that he should lose his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Instead, they let him off with slap on the wrist.
Lieberman: Public option is ‘not attainable’ because ‘the public doesn’t support it.’
Lieberman: Public option is ‘not attainable’ because ‘the public doesn’t support it.’
Last week, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told the Connecticut Post that he believed the only “opportunity to achieve significant reform with bipartisan support” was if the public option was “off the table.” “There will be no shot at 60 votes” with a public option, said Lieberman, adding “because I’m not the only one” against it. On MSNBC today, Lieberman claimed that the public option wasn’t “attainable” because “the public doesn’t support it”:
LIEBERMAN: The question is, are people going to continue to fight for elements that are not attainable or are they going to try to find common ground?
MITCHELL: You mean — you mean the public option? You mean the public option is not attainable?
LIEBERMAN: I mean — yes, I mean a government-run health insurance plan. The public doesn’t support it. They know that, ultimately, taxpayers will pay for it. They don’t want us to add to the debt. They feel that the existing system, private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, does pretty well.
Watch it:
Lieberman is wrong when he says that “the public doesn’t support” a public option. In fact, numerous polls have found strong support for such an option, including a recent SurveyUSA study that found 77 percent of Americans feel it is important to have a “choice” between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage. Andrew Sullivan notes that independents support it 57-33.
Lieberman: ‘There’s No Reason’ To Deal With The Uninsured Until After The Recession
Lieberman: ‘There’s No Reason’ To Deal With The Uninsured Until After The Recession
Last week, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), the most conservative member of the so-called bipartisan “Gang of Six” working on the Senate Finance Committee’s health care bill, stated that he preferred that Congress deal with reform incrementally. “I think the only way it will happen is we need to break it down into smaller parts than we have now and put it through one at a time,” he said.
Today on CNN, Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT), an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, embraced Enzi’s idea. “Great changes in our country often have come in steps. The Civil Rights movement occurred, changes occurred in steps,” he argued. Lieberman added that Congress should address the nearly 50 million uninsured at some point down the road:
LIEBERMAN: Morally, everyone of us would like to cover every American with health insurance but that’s where you spend most of the trillion dollars plus, or a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this health care plan will cost. And I’m afraid we’ve got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy is out of recession. There’s no reason we have to do it all now.
Later, host John King asked Lieberman if he would vote with the Democrats if the reconciliation process is used to pass health care. “I think it’s a real mistake to try to jam through the total health insurance reform,” Lieberman said, adding, “It’s just not good for the system. Frankly, it won’t be good for the Obama presidency.” Watch it:
Noting that the insured currently pay for the uninsured through rising premiums, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) challenged Lieberman’s approach. “We’ve got to bring down the cost of health care,” he argued. “It’s difficult to do that by ignoring those who don’t have health insurance today.” A New York Times editorial today agreed:
If nothing is done to slow current trends, the number of people in this country without insurance or with inadequate coverage will continue to spiral upward. That would be a personal tragedy for many and a moral disgrace for the nation. It is also by no means cost-free. Any nation as rich as ours ought to guarantee health coverage for all of its residents.
Yet, Lieberman still sides with the Republicans on health care reform. “Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said last November defending Lieberman against anger over his support for John McCain’s candidacy for president. “Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut.”
Lieberman Says He’s ‘Pleasantly Encouraged’ By Obama, But Disagrees With His Middle East And Health Care Agenda
Lieberman Says He’s ‘Pleasantly Encouraged’ By Obama, But Disagrees With His Middle East And Health Care Agenda
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) — who campaigned hard against President Obama during the 2008 election and supported his Republican challenger John McCain — said that he’s impressed with how Obama is handling the job.
“Put me down now as pleasantly encouraged by the first five months,” Lieberman said. “He has been strong, particularly on foreign policy. I think President Obama is off to a very, very good start in a very difficult time in our nation’s history.” Lieberman lauded Obama’s recent Cairo speech to the Muslim world, saying it was a “significant step overall. … My guess is he opened some minds in the Muslim world.”
Despite the laudatory comments of Obama’s foreign policy vision, Lieberman offered criticism of the president’s efforts to urge Israel to stop its settlement activities. “I thought the focus on the President’s direct call in that speech in Cairo for the Israelis to freeze all settlement activity — including the ‘natural growth‘ of settlements that everybody agrees are no longer settlements — …that was risky in the sense that it may lead listeners to believe that the main reason there is not an Arab-Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is the Israeli settlement policy,” he said:
HUNT: Do you disagree then with the President and Secretary Clinton that there ought to be a freeze — no growth in those settlements now?
LIEBERMAN: I do. I disagree.
Watch it:
On Obama’s domestic agenda, Lieberman announced his opposition to a public health insurance option. “I don’t favor a public option, and I don’t favor a public option because I think there’s plenty of competition in the private insurance market,” he argued. (He’s wrong.) Lieberman warned that political pressure in favor of the public option may thwart efforts at achieving health care reform. “Let’s get something done instead of having a debate,” he said.
Separately, Lieberman said he “could support” the Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation in the House. “It’s a great act of legislative leadership,” he added, saying the critical issue is convincing “people from states that get a lot of their electricity from coal-burning power plants that we can make this change without skyrocketing the cost of living and the cost of doing business.”
Lieberman breaks with Cheney: ‘We’re not less safe’ under Obama.
Lieberman breaks with Cheney: ‘We’re not less safe’ under Obama.
Yesterday on CBS’s Face the Nation, former Vice President Cheney repeated his claim that President Obama is making the country less secure. Notably, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who has largely agreed with Cheney on national security policy, disagrees. Today on MSNBC, Lieberman said the U.S. is not less safe under Obama:
LIEBERMAN: No, we’re not less safe. I suppose that’s the short answer, and probably as good as I can give. I disagree with some of the things the administration has done. Even in the closing of Guantanamo, they’re being very methodical at this point.
“Our guard is up,” he said. “On balance, we remain as safe as we can possibly be in a world in which there is Islamist extremists who want to attack us.” Watch it:
Former White House press secretary Dana Perino also has broken with Cheney. “One last question I need a yes or no. Do you feel safe under President Obama?” Bill O’Reilly asked her on Friday. “So far, yes,” Perino responded. (HT: Politico)
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.”
Lieberman: Obama releasing OLC torture memos ‘helps our enemies.’
Lieberman: Obama releasing OLC torture memos ‘helps our enemies.’
In an interview yesterday with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) panned President Obama’s recent release of Bush-era OLC memos approving torture. “I thought release of the memos was a bad idea,” Lieberman said. “It wasn’t necessary. It just helps our enemies. It doesn’t really help us.” Lieberman then said waterboarding should always be on the table:
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.
Lieberman said he does “believe General Hayden” in that waterboarding “really did work” to prevent terrorist attacks. Watch it:
Last year, Lieberman downplayed the severity of waterboarding, saying, “It is not like putting burning coals on people’s bodies.” In February, he joked about the torture tactic at Washington’s Alfalfa dinner.
McCain Decries ‘Loose Rhetoric About A Minimal Commitment In Afghanistan’ … Like His Own
McCain Decries ‘Loose Rhetoric About A Minimal Commitment In Afghanistan’ … Like His Own
In today’s Washington Post, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) have an op-ed calling for a robust “comprehensive civil-military counterinsurgency approach” to the war in Afghanistan, demonstrating “unambiguous U.S. political commitment to success…over the long haul”:
As the administration finalizes its policy review, we are troubled by calls in some quarters for the president to adopt a “minimalist” approach toward Afghanistan. Supporters of this course caution that the American people are tired of war and that an ambitious, long-term commitment to Afghanistan may be politically unfeasible. [...]
Loose rhetoric about a minimal commitment in Afghanistan is counterproductive for another reason: It exacerbates suspicions, already widespread in South Asia, that the United States will tire of this war and retreat. These doubts about our staying power deter ordinary Afghans from siding with our coalition against the insurgency.
This pivot to Afghanistan is new for McCain. During the presidential campaign, when Barack Obama was already calling Afghanistan the “central front” in the war on terrorism, McCain was still insisting it was Iraq.
Additionally, as ThinkProgress has highlighted, in November 2003, McCain was tossing around all sorts of “loose rhetoric about a minimal commitment in Afghanistan”:
McCAIN: I am concerned about it, but I’m not as concerned as I am about Iraq today — obviously, or I’d be talking about Afghanistan — but I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that in the long term we may muddle through in Afghanistan.
Watch it:
Last month when McCain was delivering a speech on Afghanistan at AEI, the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss challenged the senator on his comments. McCain was at a loss for a response, other than, “Well, obviously you are taking that statement out of context.”
Lieberman Joins Republican Attacks On Chas Freeman: ‘I’m Concerned’
Lieberman Joins Republican Attacks On Chas Freeman: ‘I’m Concerned’
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this morning, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) questioned National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair about his selection of Chas Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council.
Freeman’s views on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute have raised concerns among neoconservatives weeks ago. In recent days, Freeman’s critics have made “unpersuasive attempts at describing [him] as ‘hostile’ to Israel; a radical ideologue; and an apologist for human rights abuses are what remains of the opposition.”
Yesterday, a group of Senate Republicans on the Intelligence committee wrote a letter to Blair questioning Freeman’s selection, and distributed it to the press. “Given our concerns about Mr. Freeman’s lack of experience and uncertainty about his objectivity, we intend to devote even more oversight scrutiny to the activities of the NIC under his leadership,” the senators wrote.
This morning, Lieberman amplified the Republicans’ criticisms. “I’m concerned,” Lieberman told Blair, expressing his worries over “statements that [Freeman’s] made that appear either to be inclined to lean against Israel or too much in favor of China.” Blair offered this cogent defense of Freeman:
A mutual friend said about Ambassador Freeman — who I’ve known for a number of years — there is no one whose intellect I respect more and with whom I agree less than Ambassador Freeman. Those of us who know him find him to be a person of strong views, of inventive mind from an analytical point of view – I’m not talking about policy – and that when we go back and forth with him, a better understanding comes out of those interactions. That’s primarily the value that I think he will bring.
Watch it:
“The concern about Ambassador Freeman is that he has such strong policy views,” Lieberman responded. Matt Duss notes that Freeman is “apparently the only person in Washington not allowed to have any” strong opinions.
Lieberman: Republicans In The ‘Gang Of Moderates’ Are ‘Heroes,’ Deserve The ‘Congressional Medal Of Honor’
Lieberman: Republicans In The ‘Gang Of Moderates’ Are ‘Heroes,’ Deserve The ‘Congressional Medal Of Honor’
Today in his town hall address in Elkhart, IN, President Obama criticized heavy cuts to education funding in the Senate’s economic recovery package crafted by the so-called “Gang of Moderates.” “I’ll be honest with you, the Senate version cut a lot of these education dollars,” said Obama. “I would like to see some of them restored.”
Nevertheless, proud “centrists” Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) appeared on MSNBC this afternoon to tout their version of the bill. Lieberman, in particular, went overboard in praising the gang’s Republicans — Snowe, Susan Collins (ME), and Arlen Specter (PA) — by calling them “heroes” who deserve an award:
LIEBERMAN: And therefore, I think our three Republican colleagues — Olympia, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter — are really the heroes in this for making a stimulus possible. [...]
Again, I really can’t say enough about Olympia Snowe and the other two Republicans who really deserve the Congressional Medal of Honor on this one. They’ve put national interests ahead of what most members of their party were doing, and as a result, we’re going to get a stimulus bill that’s going to help the American people hold their jobs, create new ones, and get our economy moving again.
Watch it:
Today in the New York Times, however, Paul Krugman had a different idea about what these centrists have wrought:
What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?
A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.
Despite Lieberman’s claim that the Senate bill will “help the American people hold their jobs [and] create new ones,” CAP’s Will Straw explains that it actually “provides for 12 to 15 percent fewer jobs created or saved than the House-passed Recovery and Reinvestment Act despite costing slightly more.”
Transcript: More »
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll