Joe Lieberman

Obama's First Big Mistake on the Job: Rescuing Sen. Joe Lieberman

dlindorff — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:08:44 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

The word is that Barack Obama, in keeping with his promise of a new
post-Bush/Cheney era of “civility in government,” is telling Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid not to eject the treacherous Sen. Joe
Lieberman (I-CT) from the Democratic caucus.

This is a terrible mistake. Joe Lieberman is a wretched example of
a man without principle—a back-stabbing slimeball of a politician whose
only allegience, apparently, besides to himself, is to Israel.

Now I don’t want anyone to think I’m some rabid anti-semite. My
wife and kids are Jewish, we have good friends who are Israeli, and no,
I don’t think the Jews run the media or the country. I do, however,
think that Joe Lieberman thinks more about what, in his warped and
shriveled worldview, is good for Israel, than about what is good for
America.

This senator from my childhood state of Connecticut, who back in
2000 ran as a standard-bearer of the Democratic Party as Al Gore’s
running mate, since 9-11 has been a warmonger of the first order, even
joining the right-wing Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) in trying to pass a
resolution in the senate last year which, had it made it through as he
originally worded it, would have effectively enabled—even
invited--George Bush to attack Iran at will as a part of Bush’s
megalomaniacal global “War” on Terror.

It is Lieberman’s obsession with having the US obliterate first
Iraq and now Iran, with nukes if need be, that led him to abandon his
party and become a leading supporter and apoligist for George W. Bush
and Dick Cheney, and later to become a key endorser of Sen. John
“Bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran” McCain.

Lieberman also signed on enthusiastically to the worst excesses of
Bush’s and Cheney’s eight-year-long assault on the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights and International Law. As head of the Senate Homeland
Security Committee, Lieberman became the leading advocate of fascist
policies in the Senate, rivaled only by such ranting Republican
proto-fascists as Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Rep. Michelle
Bachmann (R-MN). It was Lieberman who at least initially
enthusiastically backed Attorney General John Ashcroft’s mad proposal
(thankfully never implemented) to establish an Operation TIPS (for
Terrorist Information and Prevention Service) program that would have
recruited millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors and
co-workers, replicating the dreaded Stasi of Communist East Germany.
Only after libertarian-minded Republicans like former House Majority
Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) came out strongly against the scheme did
Lieberman have second thoughts, Initially, in fact, Lieberman had
personally, in his role as chair, blocked efforts by Sen. Patrick Leahy
(D-VT) to delete funding for Operation TIPS from a Homeland Security
Department funding bill before his committee.

The Democrats, who already are assured of 56 solid seats in their
caucus in the next Senate, with a chance at a couple more when all the
2004 Election races are settled and runoffs completed, don’t need a
weasel like Lieberman mucking up their ranks. If they need four more
votes to kill some Republican filibusters, they have Republicans they
can turn to, or cajole. If Barack Obama is smart (and he certainly is
that), he can also add a few—perhaps even four—Democrats to Senate
ranks by naming as many Republican senators as he needs to replace to
cabinet posts. As long as he names people like Sens. Susan Collins or
Olympia Snowe of Maine, or Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who represent
states with Democratic governors, those governors will be able to
appoint, as replacements, Democratic senators.

The other reason to shun Lieberman, and to cast him into the
legislative purgatory he so richly deserves, is that it would be an
object lesson to other potential Iagos in the party’s legislative ranks
that such treachery will not be tolerated. What, after all, is the
point of having a party at all, if its members can be as back-stabbing
as Lieberman and get away with it?

It would be a good lesson to the Democrats of the state of
Connecticut, too, who voted in a Democratic primary two years ago to
oust Lieberman as their candidate for re-election, but who then turned
around and joined Republicans in re-electing him when he ran as an
independent against a Republican challenger and against Ned Lamont, the
Democrat who had bested him in the primary. This was treachery by a
class of Democrats in the state of Connecticut that should also not go
unpunished. Connecticut voters should no longer have the benefit of a
powerful senator with seniority when that senator has so betrayed his
party.

Let Lieberman go over to the Republicans hat in hand. Let him
squirm as the Christian fundamentalists among them talk in tongues and
as others of them mutter their anti-semitic obscenities behind his
back. Let this one-time self-described advocate of civil rights blush
in shame as his new colleagues crack their racist jokes about the new
president in the lilly-white Republican caucus room.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in redemption as much as the next
atheist. I’d be perfectly happy to see Joey Lieberman back in the
Democratic caucus, but first he should be made to make a full public
apology both to Obama and to the millions of Democrats who elected the
nation’s first black president, as well as to the Democrats of his home
state of Connecticut, whose resounding 61-38% vote for Obama was the
biggest repudiation of Lieberman of all. That 38 percent tally is the
one he should have gotten when he ran for re-election last time. It’s
probably higher than he’d get if he ran today in Connecticut against
Lamont or any other Democrat.
__________________
DAVE LINDORFF, a Connecticut native, is now a Philadelphia-based
journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment”
(St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His
work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Dump Joe (Again)

Bob Fertik — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:54:58 -0500

How many times do we have to Dump Joe Lieberman? We booted him out of the Democratic Party in the 2006 primary, when Ned Lamont shocked the political establishment. Despite the humiliation, Lieberman stayed in the race as an independent and beat Lamont with Republican votes.

Senate Democrats were kind enough to let Lieberman caucus with them and chair the Homeland Security Committee. How did he repay their kindness? By campaigning against Obama and for McCain, including a prime-time speech at the Republican convention.

Last week, Harry Reid told Joe he had to give up his chairmanship if he wanted to stay in the Democratic Caucus. Lieberman refused and is appealing to the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, which determine committee chairs.

You can use our call tool to reach the 19 Democratic Senators on the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee and ask them to relieve Joe Lieberman of his gavel before the start of the next Congress.

Update 1: If you've forgotten why we worked so hard to Dump Joe, Jane Hamsher cites chapter and verse.

Update 2: Brave New Films says Lieberman Must Go. Go there and call your Senator.

Fun Thoughts: Messin' With Republicans

dlindorff — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:55:55 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

A week out from Election Day, with the polls looking pretty good for Barack Obama's election, especially in the Electoral College, focus is shifting to the Senate, where Democrats would need to pick up 10 seats in order to be able to both prevent Republican obstruction via filibuster, and send Connecticut's turncoat Sen. Joe Lieberman into well-deserved oblivion.

Getting to a 10-seat gain may look like long odds, but it occurs to me that this really doesn't matter. In fact, a President Obama could have fun picking off a couple of Republican senators from states that have Democratic governors, by naming them to posts in his administration, thereby simultaneously demonstrating a bi-partisan approach to governance while ensuring solid Democratic control of both houses of Congress. And he could do this without having to name out-of-synch conservatives to any position.

For example, Obama could invite either Sen. Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe, both Republican senators in Maine, to serve in some capacity in the cabinet--perhaps in the role of EPA Administrator or Secretary of the Interior, or as Secretary of Health and Welfare or of Education. Either one would be hard put to turn down that offer, and if accepted, Maine's Democratic governor, John Baldacci, would get to name a replacement, who would be a Democrat.

Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith is in a tight race for re-election in that liberal state. If he succeeds in returning to office, Obama could offer him a cabinet post, too--perhaps Secretary of Commerce. Smith has been campaigning almost as an ally of Obama in his effort to defeat Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley, so he'd be an easy fit, and that would give Oregon's Democratic governor, Ted Kulongoski, the chance to name a Democratic replacement--probably Merkley. So everybody (except Senate Republicans) wins!

If still another Democratic Senate seat were needed to hit the magic number of 60 in the next Senate, Obama could find a job for Tennessee's Lamar Alexander, or even Pennsylvania's senior senator Arlen Specter.

Republicans, of course, would be livid if their numbers were pared in this way, but that would be fun to watch. All the named Republican senators above are relatively liberal and have suffered at the hands of their party's conservative majority. Most would probably jump at the chance of a cabinet post.

So if Obama wins next Tuesday, but Democrats fall short in the Senate, look for some entertainment in the coming few months.

________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

Lieberman Lies About Obama

Bob Fertik — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:18:09 -0400

Joe Lieberman only mentioned Barack Obama twice in his speech to the Republican convention and the world, and the second time he flat-out lied:

when Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground

The Senate never held a vote to abandon our troops in Iraq without funds, because that would get them killed. Instead Russ Feingold and Harry Reid proposed carefully-written amendments to set deadlines for Bush to remove troops safely, with a funding cutoff for combat troops only after those troops were removed to enforced the deadlines that George Bush (and John McCain) adamantly opposed.

"To provide for a transition of the Iraq mission" (5/16/07)
"To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq" (9/20/07)
"To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq." (10/3/07)
12/18/07

At a time when 2/3 of Americans wanted to bring our troops safely home, the Feingold-Reid amendments were the only serious attempts by the Senate to do so.

Will the Corporate Media call Lieberman out for being the liar that he is?

Update 1: Jane Hamsher reminds us that Lieberman also lied about lying about Obama:

In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” earlier this month, Mr. Lieberman indicated that he would attend the Republican Convention, but that he was not going there to “spend my time attacking Barack Obama.”

Lieberman: "I Have No Doubt" about Obama's Commitment to Israel

Bob Fertik — Sat, 10 May 2008 11:39:53 -0400

The vilest Republican smears against Barack Obama are that he is either a Muslim terrorist by faith (of course he's a Christian) or, more subtly, a Muslim terrorist sympathizer who would let terrorists attack or even destroy Israel.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked McCain supporter Joe Lieberman, "Do you have any doubt about Senator Obama's commitment to maintain a very supportive role for the United States as far as Israel is concerned?" Lieberman replied, "I have no doubt about that." So let's end that vile smear once and for all: if anyone emails you questions about Obama's support for Israel, send them this link by using the "Send" link below.

They're Scaring Us to Death

dlindorff — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:21:38 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

Well, now we know. Scientists have documented that the Bush/Cheney administration has been a greater threat to Americans’ health and safety than Osama Bin Laden and his terror band.

Specifically, The New York Times, in its science section today, reports that a new study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry has found that while the risk to Americans of dying at the hands of a terrorist was roughly equal to the chance of “drowning in a toilet,” the risk of cardiovascular disease among people who are frightened about the threat of terrorism is 300-500% higher than for people who are not worried.

What this means is that the Bush/Cheney administration, by constantly hyping the nation’s fears of terror through the use of everything from daily color-coded terror alerts, to absurd inspection procedures at airline terminals and parcel post restrictions, is actually scaring some of us to death.

And for what?

From the moment those planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon back in September 2001, Bush, Cheney and their allies—Republican and Democrat—in Congress and the media have been peppering us with warnings that the “bad guys” are out to kill us, to destroy our way of life, and to defeat America.

It has been a ludicrous idea from the start. The idea that small gang of guys from the Middle East could bring the mightiest nation that the world has ever known to its knees, or even significantly threaten the safety and security of the people of the United States is simply absurd and laughable. Why, even the detonation of a small smuggled nuclear device in or near an American city, should such a thing ever come to pass, would be less of a threat to the nation as a whole than the eruption of one of our many active volcanoes—say Mt. Rainier or Mt. Hood, or the Yellowstone caldera—or an 8 or 9-point earthquake in San Francisco or Los Angeles. And those natural disasters are probably more likely than the explosion of a terrorist nuke.

Yet Bush, Cheney and other charlatans like Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and the former senator and now Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Rick Santorum continue to do the scare routine, warning that we are in grave danger—from Al Qaeda or Iran getting The Bomb, to Venezuela buying military aircraft from Brazil, to Cuba manufacturing dangerous biological weapons.

I have been stunned at the response of my fellow Americans to this blatant nonsense. Shortly after the Twin Towers went down, my local school district announced the cancellation for the entire year of all school trips! There was a fear among parents and members of the local school authorities that the buses carrying them to museums or the zoo might pose tempting targets for terrorists! Our kids were also treated to scary “intruder lockdowns” where they’d be locked with their teachers in their classrooms while local cops dressed in black SWAT gear and armed with assault rifles played army in the hallways looking for imaginary terrorists.

I’ve gone on plane flights where I’ve had to wait in line for an hour while Transportation Security Administration guards check the tiny shoes of six-month-old infants to make sure they weren’t shoe bombs, and have had to surrender countless bottles of mouthwash and drinking water and tubes of toothpaste, all suspected of being smuggled explosives. (I was also honored with an “S” mark on my boarding pass a couple of times, which meant I was pulled aside for special inspection for fear I might be a terrorist myself.)

All of this nonsense, however, is coming with a price. I can laugh because I know it’s nonsense. But some people aren’t laughing. They’re living in fear. And that fear is causing them to suffer cardiovascular disease, according to this new study.

Of course, that’s only the tip of the iceberg, really, when it comes to the cost of the Washington terror scam.

American businesses have spent literally tens of billions of dollars—maybe hundreds of billions of dollars—on security measures, fearing terror attacks on their installations, or on their communications, or on Wall Street. Thousands of foreign science students and scientists have been banned from the US—or even deported--for fear they might be terrorists in training. Municipalities and states have spent billions in taxpayer dollars on security that they simply don’t need. My little town of Upper Dublin, just north of Philadelphia, with just some 26,000 people, has its own police SWAT team, for Pete’s sake, complete with a large gray SWAT vehicle—a panel truck loaded with heavy combat firepower capable of repelling a small third-world army. I wonder how many teachers that money could have hired? Maybe they wouldn’t have had to let the elementary music program go down the tubes.

I haven't mentioned the whole $1-2 trillion War in Iraq, which was all the result of presidential and vice presidential scare mongering.

And of course, that’s just the financial cost of scare mongering. We’ve also given up most of our Bill or Rights, and even some more ancient rights, like the right of Habeas Corpus. And we’re about to give up our entire right to privacy if the government gets its way and introduces a national identity card. How far away are we from having to get injected with identity chips?

All this panic and fear, and yet we still sing this national anthem that calls America “the home of the brave”?

I don’t think so. "Home of the scared shitless" might be more appropriate.

The good news is that maybe this new report on the health threat posed by government scare mongering will cause people to do something about it. If there’s one thing Americans get worked up about, it’s threats to their health. Look how anxious people get about Bird Flu, West Nile Virus, Anthrax, Bubonic Plague, AIDS, etc. Maybe now that we’re learning that worrying about terror can kill us, we’ll demand that officials and politicians in Washington just shut the hell up about it.

I don’t know about you, but I really don’t think about terrorists. The chances that I’m going to be the victim of a bombing, plane hijacking or mall attack is so minimal it can’t be measured.

I’m much more worried that the country that I grew up in has been hijacked by a bunch of power-mad war-mongers bent on destroying the Constitution and bringing to an end the free and free-wheeling society we’ve been building for over 200 years.

I hope that worrying doesn’t end up giving me a heart attack…
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

McCain and Lieberman form Iraq4Ever Loser Ticket

Bob Fertik — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:45:03 -0500

Is anyone surprised the Joe Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President?

McCain is running 5th in Iowa, on his way to 6th as Ron Paul passes him. McCain's only prayer is New Hampshire, where Romney is 16% ahead and pulling away. In South Carolina, McCain is running 4th and falling. He's so desperate for attention he'll do anything - including trumpeting the endorsement of the most unpopular ex-Democrat in America.

What do McCain and Lieberman have in common? The deep devotion to a permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq, at a time when 70% of Americans want to get out in 2008.

When McCain gets clobbered in the Republican primaries, he should carry on his campaign by forming a 3rd Party with Lieberman - the Iraq4Ever Losers Party.

In the meantime, this is a wonderful clarifying event for anyone who believed Lieberman's empty promises of fealty to the Democratic Party that he betrayed by running as an independent against Ned Lamont after Connecticut's Democratic voters chose Lamont in the primary. As Ari Melber writes,

During his 2006 reelection campaign, Lieberman emphasized that he would support Democratic candidates in 2008. "I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008," he said during a televised debate in July. Lieberman promptly backtracked after his reelection, announcing this January that he was "open" to supporting a Republican or Democrat for president, depending "on a whole range of issues." By not even waiting to see who the Democrats nominate, now Lieberman is revealing that the issues aren't important to him.

If Lieberman had waited until Democrats chose his nominee - and of course endorsed the Republican, as he inevitably would - he would have gotten vast TV coverage for his attack on the Democrat, and that would have hurt our candidate. But now that Lieberman has endorsed a Republican, his attacks on the Democrat will no longer matter. So today's move is a big win for Democrats!

Lieberman's Faux Concern For Troops Truly A Republican Message

Bob Geiger — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 15:11:02 -0500

Showing that the primary qualification for delivering the Saturday Democratic radio address is obviously not that the speaker be, well, a Democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman today gave the "Democratic" address and performed with a stunning degree of hypocrisy that showed he is indeed much closer to being a Republican than anything else in the political spectrum.

Lieberman, who is George W. Bush's only non-GOP ally in the Senate when it comes to the deadly, misguided war in Iraq, gave a talk in which he discussed the country's obligation to its Veterans and his dismay with the horrible conditions our wounded troops have seen at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

"Recent reports in the Washington Post have uncovered completely unacceptable living conditions and inadequate services that some of our wounded warriors have been forced to endure at Walter Reed," said Lieberman. "While it is clear that our soldiers do receive the best state of the art battlefield and in-patient medical treatment for their injuries, that high quality care has not extended to their out-patient treatment and recovery."

Lieberman then went on to use flowery language to talk about the responsibility we have to American troops and the heavy debt we must repay in seeing that they receive top-notch care when they return home.

"Our nation has no greater moral and patriotic responsibility than to ensure that these brave Americans receive first class treatment -- not only immediately after their injuries, but for their entire lives, through the Veterans Administration," said the former Democrat from Connecticut. "We can all agree that taking care of our military veterans is one of America's greatest responsibilities. We are and must continue to be united as a country to ensure that our heroes - those who have served us - receive the care that they deserve. This is no less than our moral imperative."

Talk about your bad case of situational ethics and morals -- though we've become all too accustomed to that from a man who long ago gave up his commitment to Democratic ideals.

Like his Republican allies in the Senate, Lieberman talks a big game about taking care of our troops, but his rhetoric is kind of the reverse of the GOP's "love the fetus, hate the child" stance when it comes to abortion.

Republicans will fight to the death for an embryo but don’t give a damn what happens to a child after he or she comes into the world. Similarly, Lieberman is more than willing to be a war hawk and send our men and women off to fight and die for nothing in Iraq -- that's right, I said for nothing -- but is suddenly concerned for their lives when they manage to make it back home.

Despite the fact that the majority of Americans no longer support the Iraq war -- and no matter how much politicians may run from the truth that any future American lives sacrificed there are indeed a waste -- Lieberman continues to stand by the worst president in U.S. history and advocate a war that keeps killing our troops day after day.

It's nauseating enough to many of us that we actually worked so hard to try to make Lieberman vice president in 2000, but the least the Democratic party can do is not continue to sicken us by allowing a guy who has so clearly abandoned our principles to even appear to be our national voice.

As he almost always does, Joe Lieberman talked a lot like a Republican today. So why the hell was he giving the Democratic address?

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

LIEberman Joined the GOPer Filibuster of Senate Iraq Debate

CactusPat — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:43:21 -0500

Any surprise LIEberman joined the GOPer filibuster? Hey, fine Joe, go ahead and help the Repubnuts become the permanent minority in American politics...

Iraq Vote In Senate Blocked By GOP - 7 Republicans Join Democratic Push - Senate Republicans for a second time blocked a symbolic attempt by Democrats to reject President Bush's troop increase yesterday, but GOP defections were higher than before, suggesting Republican cracks as the Iraq war dominates Congress's agenda... (more)

With the 56 to 34 vote, Democrats fell shy of the 60 votes required to kick off debate on a nonbinding resolution passed by the House last week that expresses support for the troops but criticizes Bush's decision to expand combat ranks by more than 20,000 troops. Senate Democrats picked up five new Republican allies in their effort to advance the resolution, bringing the GOP total to seven.

But the fate of the resolution is now very much in doubt. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced after the vote that he would not bring up the resolution again. Both sides instead are girding for the next phase, a confrontation over war funding, with some Democrats determined to exercise the power of the purse to influence Iraq strategy.

As Congress struggled to find its voice in the Iraq debate, the administration intensified its own campaign to convince the American public that the conflict remains winnable. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice paid a surprise visit to Baghdad yesterday, announcing that the increase in troops was bringing "new hope and a new optimism" to the besieged city. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki assured Bush on Friday that the buildup had already achieved "fabulous success."

Those optimistic pronouncements appeared to have little impact on the Senate floor yesterday, where a rare Saturday session made for a dramatic political tableau. Presidential candidates jetted in from various primary states, having canceled visits to popular diners and town-hall meetings to cast their vote. They did not all show. One of the 10 absentees was Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a supporter of the Bush plan, who was campaigning in Iowa.

Most Democrats were already seated at their desks when the roll call began shortly before 2 p.m. The only Democrat who missed the vote was Sen. Tim Johnson (S.D.), who is recovering from brain surgery. Democratic Sens. Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.) and Max Baucus (Mont.) canceled plans to visit Iraq this weekend and were present on the floor. Their traveling companions, GOP Sens. Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.), went ahead with the trip and missed the Senate action.

The resolution was identical to a measure that passed the House on Friday, with modest Republican support. "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq," the resolution states. And it adds, "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."

Reid said he would not try a third time to put the Senate on record against the troop increase. But he said the Iraq debate would continue when the Senate returns Feb. 26 from a week-long recess and turns to legislation to enact homeland security recommendations from the Sept. 11 commission.

Reid promised that both sides would be allowed to offer Iraq-related amendments to that bill. And Congress will soon debate Bush's request for $100 billion in additional funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the current fiscal year. In the House, Democrats are moving to fully fund the president's war request, under the condition that the administration follow strict standards for training and equipping troops.

During separate conversations with U.S. and Iraqi officials in Baghdad yesterday, Rice referred to the looming skirmishes in Washington over the troop buildup and funding request.

"Some of the debate in Washington is in fact indicative of the concerns that the American people have about the prospects of success if Iraqi leadership doesn't do what it needs to do," Rice told reporters during a roundtable discussion at the house of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq yesterday afternoon.

"I think there's a new spirit here to try to do those things," she said. "The input appears to be there. The political support appears to be there."

But Democrats believe they are playing a strong hand in the Iraq debate. Polls show that most voters oppose a troop increase, and the GOP's heavy losses in the November elections were widely interpreted as a call for more aggressive vetting of Bush's Iraq strategy.

As soon as Bush announced the military buildup early last month, Democratic leaders considered ways to officially register an objection. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) agreed to begin work on a nonbinding resolution, believing it was the easiest vote politically, including for Republicans who are disaffected by Bush's leadership on Iraq.

But in the Senate, Republicans decided to offer their own nonbinding measure, asserting that Congress would not cut off troop funding. Some Democrats opposed to the Iraq war want to target Pentagon spending as a way to force a withdrawal of troops.

Reid refused to allow a vote on the GOP measure, explaining that he wanted to keep the debate focused on the troop increase. Republicans now have twice voted this month to block a nonbinding resolution, on grounds that Reid was not playing fair. In spirited floor speeches in recent days, Democrats taunted their GOP colleagues for throwing up procedural hurdles to protect Bush from a potentially embarrassing repudiation.

"They are trying to divert attention from the issue at hand," Reid said of Republicans yesterday. "They'd like to turn the Senate into a procedural quagmire. They want to hide behind weak and misleading arguments about the Senate's rules or a senator's right to offer amendments. These arguments are diversions."

But Republicans accused Democrats of hiding behind the Senate rulebook to avoid the funding question.

"The reason we're here on a Saturday playing stupid political games while people are off in Iraq trying to win this war is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid to take a vote on cutting off funding," blasted Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), in a speech before the vote.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would not relent. "I think the majority of Senate Republicans have made it clear again today, and are highly likely to do that again in the future, that when we turn to this issue, we're going to insist on voting on funding the troops," the Kentucky Republican said.

The White House issued a statement saying "this week's voting gave the world a glimpse of democracy's vigor," but it also welcomed the funding showdown.

"The next votes should provide unmistakable assurance of this nation's resolve in achieving success, supporting the cause of democracy, and stopping terrorist forces in their ultimate aim of bringing their violence to our shores," the White House said.

Seven Republicans voted with the Democrats to allow the debate to proceed, including Sens. John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Norm Coleman (Minn.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Susan M. Collins (Maine). When Republicans voted to block a similar, albeit lengthier, resolution earlier this month, only Collins and Coleman broke ranks. Among these Republicans, all but Specter and Snowe are up for reelection in 2008.

The Republican senators aside from McCain, Kyl and Corker who were absent yesterday were Robert F. Bennett (Utah), Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), John Ensign (Nev.), Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska). Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) voted with Republicans.

The seven Republican defectors are all on record opposing the Bush plan. Several other GOP senators, including Sens. Sam Brownback (Kan.) and George Voinovich (Ohio), have expressed concerns, but they voted with their party yesterday. Warner was the chief author of the earlier nonbinding resolution on Iraq to come before the Senate. That version was shelved last week for the simpler House text.

"I feel that the Senate, the Senate of the United States of America, an institution revered throughout the world, should have the right to go forward and debate this critical issue before America today, before the whole world," Warner said. "I think we've come to the point in time where we must move forward."

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 18, 2007; A01

Roll call vote is here. On a related note, looks like LIEberman has drunk the Iran War Lies Kool-Aid...

Subpoena Brownie: What Else Will He Reveal?

davidswanson — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 06:56:04 -0500

Now we know why Homeland Security Chairman Lieberman betrayed his promise to investigate Katrina: because he's just George Bush's bitch. - Bob Fertik

Brown: Politics played role in Katrina
By NAHAL TOOSI, Associated Press

Political storm clouds gathered again over the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina as former Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown said party politics influenced decisions on whether to take federal control of Louisiana and other areas affected by the hurricane.

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said the partisanship Brown described was "disgusting," while a White House spokeswoman said Brown was making "false statements."

Brown told a group of graduate students Friday that some in the White House had suggested the federal government should take charge in Louisiana because Blanco was a Democrat, while leaving Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican, in control in his state.

Brown, speaking at the Metropolitan College of New York, said he had recommended to President Bush that all 90,000 square miles along the Gulf Coast affected by the devastating hurricane be federalized — a term Brown explained as placing the federal government in charge of all agencies responding to the disaster.

"Unbeknownst to me, certain people in the White House were thinking, 'We had to federalize Louisiana because she's a white, female Democratic governor, and we have a chance to rub her nose in it,'" he said, without naming names. "'We can't do it to Haley (Barbour) because Haley's a white male Republican governor. And we can't do a thing to him. So we're just gonna federalize Louisiana.'"

Brown, 52, declined to say who in the White House had argued for federalizing the response only in Louisiana. He said that he'd later learned of the machinations through Blanco's office and from federal officials.

Blanco reacted sharply to Brown's remarks.

"This is exactly what we were living but could not bring ourselves to believe. Karl Rove was playing politics while our people were dying," Blanco said through a spokeswoman, referring to Bush's top political strategist. "The federal effort was delayed, and now the public knows why. It's disgusting."

Eryn Witcher, a White House spokeswoman, denied Brown's claims.

"It is unfortunate that Mike Brown is still hurling false statements about the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina," she said. "The only consideration made by the administration at the time of this tragedy and since are those in the best interests of the citizens of the Gulf region."

Calls made late Friday seeking comment from the federal Department of Homeland Security were not immediately returned. A spokesman for Barbour, Pete Smith, had no immediate comment.

The question of federal control became a source of contention after Katrina. Bush asked to put military relief efforts in Louisiana under federal oversight, but Louisiana officials rejected that idea, keeping state control over National Guard troops. They worked together with federal forces.

___

Associated Press writer Chevel Johnson contributed to this report from New Orleans.