Lieberman On Bush Comparing Democrats To Nazi-Appeasers: ‘The President Got It Exactly Right’
Lieberman On Bush Comparing Democrats To Nazi-Appeasers: ‘The President Got It Exactly Right’
Delivering an address before the Israeli Knesset today, President Bush said that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Democrats favor a policy of appeasement toward terrorists.
Obama quickly responding, criticizing Bush for using the “60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack.” As MSNBC reported, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), a strong supporter of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), has also now issued a statement, saying that he wholeheartedly agrees with Bush’s comments:
President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that — if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers — they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.
Watch it:
In an interview with MSNBC, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) sharply criticized both Bush and Lieberman, saying that the President should apologize to the public for politicizing the 60th anniversary of Israel:
What an irony to have the current president in Israel blasting Democrats from the Knessett when his policies have actually seen al Qaeda get strengthened. They have seen al Qaeda be reconstituted. They have seen al Qaeda get stronger, Hamas get stronger, Israel more threatened, Iran is stronger, and Iraq is in chaos.
This is a disgraceful statement by the President. It really is. He ought to apologize to the American people for going to Israel and using the Knesset and the celebration of the 60 anniversary of a state and a people that we all support and that we’re all proud of, and using it for politics.
Kerry also noted that if Bush is saying that he is against talks with Iran, then he should “come home and call for the resignation of his own cabinet, because the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense have both favored negotiations with Iran.”
Lieberman Says Bombing Iran ‘Has An Appeal To It’
On right-winger Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) expressed his openess to bombing Iran, saying that there is “an appeal to it.” Discussing the West Virginia primary results, Bennett praised what he claimed was Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) transformation into his “style” of politician, which he said is someone who “throws down a shot of liquor and bombs Iran.”
Lieberman whole-heartedly endorsed the “appeal” of the hawkish caricature Bennett had created:
BENNETT: Listen, I give her credit. She has found her…three things. She’s found her voice. He is very much in the background now, it’s not this, you know, ventriloquial thing, it’s definitely her voice.
LIEBERMAN: That’s true.
BENNETT: And Joe, you know, this is my style. This is a girl who puts on her pearls, goes down, throws down a shot of liquor and bombs Iran, you know. This is…lookout Mrs. Bennett, this is my kind of girl.
LIEBERMAN: Hehehe, it does have an appeal to it.
Listen to it:
Neither Lieberman nor Bennett is shy about his willingness to militarily strike Iran.
Almost a year ago, Lieberman declared on Face The Nation that “we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians.” Earlier this week, he called airstrikes against Iran “a distinct possibility.”
In April, after Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker testified before Congress, Bennett told the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol that the “conclusion” he drew was that their testimony was “less an argument for getting out of Iraq than going into Iran.”
Lieberman Dismisses Iraqis Who Oppose A McCain Presidency
Lieberman Dismisses Iraqis Who Oppose A McCain Presidency
On CNN’s American Morning earlier today, Kyra Phillips reported that during a recent trip to Baghdad “dozens of Iraqi soldiers and dozens of students at Baghdad university” told her that they “don’t want to see a Republican president.” “Out of every single one that I talked to, one person said they supported John McCain,” said Phillips.
Asked to respond, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who is an ardent supporter of McCain, dismissed what the Iraqis told Phillips as an “unscientific poll.” He claimed that on all the visits he’s made to Iraq, “the Iraqi people on the street, the Iraqi military, the Iraqi government that I’ve talked to, don’t want us to just pick up and leave.”
Lieberman then noted that the Iraqis don’t want the U.S. “to stay there forever,” which he claimed was consistent with McCain’s position on Iraq:
The Iraqi people on the street, the Iraqi military, the Iraqi government that I’ve talked to, don’t want us to just pick up and leave, which is what Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton have been advocating. They want us, obviously, not to stay there forever. Sen. McCain wants the war to stop and to have us pull back into bases and be on a path, a reasonable path of withdrawal.
Watch it:
As Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) told ThinkProgress last year, congressional trips like Lieberman’s are shrouded in a “Green Zone fog” that makes it hard to get a real sense of the reality on the ground. But, as Phillips noted during her March report from Baghdad, she didn’t have a public affairs official present when she interviewed the soldiers and students, which she says allowed for an “uncensored” and “candid” two-hour discussion.
Additionally, in making the claim that like the Iraqis, McCain doesn’t want us “to stay there forever,” Lieberman completely ignores the fact that McCain has said it is “fine” with him for the U.S. to stay in Iraq for 100 years, which would essentially be forever. Also, while the Iraqi people have rejected permanent U.S. bases in the country, McCain has said they may be “necessary.”
Lieberman: It’s ‘a good question’ to ask if Obama is ‘a Marxist.’
Lieberman: It’s ‘a good question’ to ask if Obama is ‘a Marxist.’
In his New York Times column today, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol claimed that Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) now-infamous “bitter” remarks sound like Karl Marx’s “famous statement about religion.” On the Brian and the Judge radio show today, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano asked Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) if Obama is “a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case?”
“I must say that’s a good question,” replied Lieberman, before stepping back to say that he would “hesitate to say he’s a Marxist”:
NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today’s New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?
LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he’s obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.
Listen here:
Ignoring Uptick In Iraq Violence, Lieberman And Graham Accuse War Critics Of ‘A Crisis Of Credibility’
Ignoring Uptick In Iraq Violence, Lieberman And Graham Accuse War Critics Of ‘A Crisis Of Credibility’
Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) accuse critics of the Iraq war of facing “a crisis of credibility” because they “confidently predicted the failure of the surge.” But in their effort to argue that anti-war critics have “been proven decidedly wrong,” Lieberman and Graham undermine their own credibility on the issue by ignoring recent developments in the war-torn country.
As proof of the surge’s success, the two hawkish senators cite statistics that they say show “dramatic improvements in security”:
No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces. From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%.
The fact that Lieberman and Graham only cite statistics through February — even though numbers for March 2008 are available — undercuts their argument. Perhaps they ignored March because there was “a 25 or 30 percent increase in the number of civilian casualties” from February to March:
Overall, Iraqi deaths rose from a low of 568 in December and 541 in January to roughly 721 in February to more than 1,082 in March, according to statistics compiled by Iraq’s ministries of health, interior, and defense and confirmed by Smith. The vast majority were civilians.
“There was somewhere on the order of a 25 or 30 percent increase in the number of civilian casualties when you consider March compared to February,” Smith said, although “the numbers are still nowhere near what they had been last summer.”
Lieberman and Graham also claim that “the critics in Washington have been proven wrong” about political progress in Iraq, citing the passage of “de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections” legislation by the Iraqi government. But this too is not an honest assessment of what has occurred in Iraq. In a report to be released today, the experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group call political progress “superficial“:
A new assessment of U.S. policy in Iraq by the same experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group concludes that political progress is “so slow, halting and superficial” and political fragmentation “so pronounced” that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago.
Before accusing their political opponents of “a crisis of credibility,” Lieberman and Graham should make sure their arguments don’t undermine their own credibility.
Lieberman Rewrites History While Defending McCain, Claims U.S. Leaves Residual Troops In ‘Every Conflict’
Lieberman Rewrites History While Defending McCain, Claims U.S. Leaves Residual Troops In ‘Every Conflict’
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has recently engaged in a frantic effort to “put the toothpaste back in the tube” regarding his notorious 100 years remark on the Iraq war. McCain says that since the U.S. has left troops in South Korea, for example, a prolonged presence in Iraq is also justified.
Yesterday on Fox News, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) went even further than McCain, claiming that the U.S. leaves troops behind to “secure the peace” in “every conflict”:
But the fact is we’re going to need, as we have after every conflict we’ve been in — World War II, Korea, etc., we’re going want to leave troops there to secure the peace that our soldiers have won. It’s clear that’s what he meant.
Watch it:
“Anybody who says that John McCain is for a 100 year war in Iraq is either not informed or intentionally trying to mislead the public,” Lieberman added. In reality, it seems Lieberman is the one who is “not informed.” The U.S. does not maintain a strong contingent of troops in “every conflict,” as history has shown:
– Vietnam: After President Nixon announced a phased withdrawal, the “last U.S. combat troops” withdrew in August 1972. “The last remaining American troops withdrew” by 1973. In April 1975, “the last Americans, ten Marines from the embassy, depart Saigon, concluding the United States presence in Vietnam.”
– Somalia: “All UN and U.S. personnel were finally withdrawn…in March 1995.”
– Haiti: The “last American combat troops in Haiti returned home” in 1996. Final withdrawals were completed in 1999.
McCain claims his remarks are being distorted, but he has repeatedly supported a heavy U.S. presence, for example, even supporting permanent bases in Iraq. Andrew Bacevich of Boston University explains that McCain’s scenario would likely entail a combat-heavy engagement for U.S. troops:
“In Iraq, it’s not even clear there is a nation-state, and there’s little evidence there is an effective Iraqi government,” he said. “That tends to suggest a long-term presence in Iraq will not be a peacekeeping one but one in which we’re engaged in a very, very long, ugly unconventional war.“
Today’s Progress Report asks: when does McCain’s 100 years without casualties start?
Lieberman Falsely Claims McCain Doesn’t Support Privatization Of Social Security
Lieberman Falsely Claims McCain Doesn’t Support Privatization Of Social Security
On ABC’s This Week today, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) falsely claimed that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) “is not for the private accounts to take the place of social security.” “He’s for what Bill Clinton used to call Social Security plus,” said Lieberman.
Lieberman didn’t disagree, however, when host George Stephanopoulos pointed out that McCain had “disputed that in the Wall Street Journal” recently. Instead, he brushed the contradiction aside and changed the subject.
Watch it:
As Stephanopoulos noted, McCain has abandoned his initial Social Security plan, which called for “supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts,” in order to embrace President Bush’s failed effort to replace the system with private accounts. “I believe that private savings accounts are a part of” Social Security reform “along the lines that President Bush proposed,” McCain told the Wall Street Journal earlier this month.
Asked about the contradiction between his website and his own statements, McCain said he would “correct any policy paper that I’ve put out.” As of today, however, his website still hasn’t been changed to reflect his embrace of Bush:
In 2005, Lieberman called the idea of creating private accounts “a very risky thing to do.” But now, he appears willing to take that risk in order to help John McCain keep an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Graham: ‘Joe Lieberman is a national treasure.’
Graham: ‘Joe Lieberman is a national treasure.’
During a recent interview, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) “something special,” recounting their recent trip abroad. He also claimed that people around the world view McCain as a “reassuring” presence, but later admitted that no one had a “McCain sticker” on their desk:
GRAHAM: Senator Lieberman, I think, is a national treasure, because no matter how you feel about his politics, he was willing to risk everything, politically, for a cause he believed in. But to see the interaction between these two guys and world leaders was something special. […]
I think John McCain will be a reassuring presence to the world. … It really was a smile on people’s faces, knowing that if this guy got to be president, I think we could do business with him. … I think he’s a reassuring presence. Doesn’t mean that they prefer John over Obama or Senator Clinton, but there’s a level of comfort there. […]
Q: But some probably do prefer him, don’t they?
GRAHAM: Oh, I would think, but no one told us. No one had a McCain sticker on their desk.
Rove: ‘I only work for Republicans — and Joe Lieberman.’
After a speech in Los Angeles this week, former Bush aide Karl Rove was asked if he knew how to get Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton elected president. Rove, who is currently employed by Fox News, replied: “Yes, and I ain’t telling ya. I only work for Republicans — and Joe Lieberman.” In 2006, Rove also offered President Bush’s assistance to help Lieberman get re-elected to the Senate.