The Blue State

Lieberman and Graham to be Bush's political footsoldiers in September

So Connecticut, you all wish you could vote again?  Are you happy with the Senator you reelected?  I hope so, because he is going to play a central role in keeping the war going for another year.

This September, General Petraeus will give his highly anticipated report to Congress.  He is expected to say that the troop escalation is working.  According to Congressional Quarterly, Bush has sought the help of Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to help him with the spin campaign after Petraeus testifies:

Encouraged by such previews of the Petraeus report, the White House istapping sympathetic senators, including Republican Lindsey Graham ofSouth Carolina and Independent Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, forwhat amounts to a full-scale political campaign to thwart the nextdrive against the war in the Senate, where the balance of power in thedebate resides.

Democrats ought to counter with their very best.  They need to consider Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), who absolutely man-handled Lindsey Graham in a debate on Meet the Press last month.

Lieberman: We will never lose the war

In an exclusive interview with conservative personality Hugh Hewitt, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), formerly a Democrat, responded to the latest report about all the political setbacks in Iraq by claiming that the surge is working:

HH: If you read John Burns in the New York Times, it seems to be working.

JL: Right. Absolutely right. Look, there is a gap between the realwar that’s being fought in Iraq and the political war over the war inIraq that’s being fought here in Washington. And very often, thestatements in the debate here have very little to do with the realityon the ground. Every indication, really remarkably, when you thinkabout the fact that there just the full complement of troops about amonth ago for the surge, it’s showing tremendous results.

Lieberman believes the US "will never lose the war":

JL: Look,the American military, working together with coalition forces includingIraqis, will never lose the war in Iraq. I just can’t stress thatenough.

HH: Right.

JL: We will never lose the war in Iraq.

Connecticut voters, are you happy with what you got?  We would be one vote closer to ending this war if Ned Lamont had won last November.

Lieberman slams "vested interest groups" on the left

In what appeared to be a direct shot at the blogosphere, when asked which party he would back for president, Joe Lieberman slammed Clinton and Obama for agreeing with left-leaning interest groups about the war:

Democratic candidates including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obamaand John Edwards oppose the Iraq war out of deference to "vestedinterest groups within the left."

"It's a very disappointingissue," Lieberman said. "The leading Democratic candidates forpresident are competing with each other to see which one can morequickly pull more of our troops out of Iraq, while our troops are therefighting and now succeeding with a lot on the line."

It all boils down to what you consider to be an 'interest group'?  An interest group could be passionate citizens that organize to end the war.  An interest group could also be the defense industry that donated $120,100 to Lieberman's '06 Senate campaign.   So it depends how you look at it.

Lieberman calls for more surveillance cameras across America

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) went on the ABC News' show "This Week" and called for surveillance cameras to be "more widely" used throughout the country to protect from terrorism:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), the chairman of the Senate Committee onHomeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said Sunday he wants to“more widely” use surveillance cameras across the country.

“The Brits have got something smart going in England, and it was partof why I believe they were able to so quickly apprehend suspects in theterrorist acts over the weekend, and that is they have cameras all overLondon and other of their major cities,” Lieberman said.

“Ithink it’s just common sense to do that here much more widely,” headded. “And of course, we can do it without compromising anybody’s realprivacy.”

At the very least, Benjamin Franklin would have a problem with that idea.  As Franklin once said, "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

It is one thing to put cameras in Washington D.C., New York and on the border, as well as in commercial areas, but when the government starts blanketing neighborhoods with warrantless surveillance it takes the phrase 'big brother' to an unprecedented level.

Also, it's very difficult to compare England's situation to our own.  Leaders over there tend not to abuse their power we ours do.  We have an Administration that consistently ignores subpoenas and makes up its own laws.  So even if it is legal, you have to ask whether you feel comfortable with our government exercising that power under the current political leadership we have in place?

Lieberman: Diyala violence a sign that Iraq situation improving

One day removed from a Pentagon report that showed the violence getting worse in Iraq, Joe Lieberman countered Friday by writing an op-ed in the conservative Wall Street Journal newspaper.  The Connecticut Senator claimed that the spike in violence around Iraq was a testament to how much better the security situation is in Baghdad:

Some argue that the new strategy is failing because, despite gains inBaghdad and Anbar, violence has increased elsewhere in the country,such as Diyala province. This gets things backwards: Our troops havesucceeded in improving security conditions in precisely those parts ofIraq where the "surge" has focused. Al Qaeda has shifted its operationsto places like Diyala in large measure because we have made progress inpushing them out of Anbar and Baghdad. The question now is, do weconsolidate and build on the successes that the new strategy hasachieved, keeping al Qaeda on the run, or do we abandon them?

Lieberman later added:

I returned from Iraq grateful for the progress I saw and painfullyaware of the difficult problems that remain ahead. But I also returnedwith a renewed understanding of how important it is that we not abandonIraq to al Qaeda and Iran, so long as victory there is still possible.

The Senator chose not to acknowledge in the op-ed that al Qaeda and Iran are actually against one another, and that virtually all home-grown insurgents would fight foreign al Qaeda elements if US forces left Iraq.  Iraqis do not like foreigners.

Militarily speaking, the longer we stay in Iraq, the greater number of al Qaeda fighters that will be recruited.  Politically speaking, the more al Qaeda recruits, the more that neocons like Lieberman will cite that as a reason for wanting US troops to stay.

It may sound like a crazy argument, but that is the one Lieberman is using.

Lieberman favors military action against Iran

On CBS' Sunday news show Face the Nation, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told host Bob Schieffer that he would favor military force against Iran in retaliation for their involvement in Iraq:

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military actionagainst the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,"Lieberman told Bob Schieffer . "And to me, that would include astrike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidencethat they have a base at which they are training these people comingback into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

"I think you could probably do a lot of it from the air, but they can'tbelieve that they have immunity for training and equipping people tocome in and kill Americans," Lieberman said.

This is even more hard-line of a position than Condoleezza Rice's approach.  As I reported last month, there is an ongoing debate within the Bush cabinet over how to handle the Iranian situation.  Condoleezza Rice, her State Department and most other Bush cabinet officials favor diplomacy.  Dick Cheney and his allies favor aggressive coercion.  Lieberman appears to be backing the Cheney doctrine.

It might be nice to hear what Lieberman thinks would be the consequences of such military action against Iran.  I can think of a few:

• Wider Iranian involvement in Iraq.
• Reduced reputation in the international community.
• More defense spending in the long run.
• Oil at $85 a barrel.
• More hostility in Lebanon.
• Increased extremism in moderate states like Jordan.

Then again, maybe this is what Lieberman and Cheney want.  After all, the more Iranian aggression against U.S. interests, the more of an excuse they will have to keep the American public in a state of fear.  So this would work out well for them.

Editorial: Lieberman, please leave our party

Click To Play

Joe Lieberman paid a surprise visit to Baghdad this week and mimicked John McCain's trip there just one month prior -- patrolling the streets with heavy force and sniper cover.  And like McCain, he claimed that the situation in Iraq is getting better:

Overall, I'd say what I see here today is progress -- significant progress from the last time I was here in December.

But the soldiers there strongly disagree.  While waiting for Lieberman to arrive, a few soldiers spoke with the media:

"We're not making any progress," Hedin said, as he recalled a comradewho was shot by a sniper last week. "It just seems like we drive aroundand wait to get shot at."

But as he waited two chairs down from where Lieberman would sit, Hedin said he'd never voice his true feelings to the senator.

"I think I'd be a private if I did," he joked. "It's just more troops, more targets."

Spc. Kevin Krasco, 20, of Medford, Mass., and Spc. Kevin Adams, 20, ofMoosup, Conn., chimed in with their dismay before turning theconversation to baseball.

"It's like everything else in this war," Adams said, referring to Baghdad. "It hasn't changed."

During the trip, Lieberman even said he would not rule out war with Iran.

Even though the Senate is 51-49, if we explode at people like Joe Biden for supporting the President's Iraq funding bill, then why are there not calls for Democrats to abandon Joe Lieberman?  This Connecticut Senator is pulling the party in the wrong direction on the most important issue since Vietnam.  Yes, we will lose control of the Senate.  But this is a matter of principle.  It is how this Congress will be remembered 50 years from now.  Voters demanded boldness last November.  Instead, we have Senate Majority Leader who awarded pro-war Joe Lieberman the gavel as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.  Something is wrong with that.  Even if it means losing the Senate, I would gain a great deal of respect for Harry Reid if he abandoned Mr. Lieberman.

Lieberman to co-host GOP fundraiser

For those of us that have followed Joe Lieberman's pattern of behavior since 2002, this should not come as any surprise.  The recently reelected U.S. Senator from Connecticut has endorsed Republican Susan Collins:

Not only has Lieberman endorsed  Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine.) -- one of Democrats' biggest targets in the 2008 cycle --but he's planning to co-host a fundraiser for her on June 21 inWashington, D.C.

The event, which will be held in a Capitol Hill location still to be determined, will feature Lieberman and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)

Beating Collins is crucial to the Democrats' hopes of increasing their slim majority in the Senate. 

To the 33% of Connecticut Democrats that voted for Lieberman last November, we warned this would happen.  This guy is no Democrat, and never will be again.

(Video) Lieberman says he might vote Republican in 2008

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) whether he would consider voting red in 2008.  The Connecticut Senator said he would.  Watch this:

WALLACE: "You're saying you might vote Republican in 2008?"

LIEBERMAN: "I am."

I hope all those Connecticut Democrats that supported Lieberman are happy.  Their vote for Joe Lieberman was an endorsement of the Republican Party in 2008.

(Video) Hagel rips Lieberman apart on Meet the Press

On today's edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) confronted Joe Lieberman when the Connecticut Senator claimed that those in Congress who disagreed with Bush's troop escalation plan were advocating defeat.

This was just wonderful!