Republicans MUST work to stop universal health care

It is quite clear that Universal Health care is an idea whose time has come. Every major politician, both Democrat and Republican, had to campaign with some kind of health care plan, and Obama won with an explicit proposal as part of his campaign.

Politically, for the Democrats to succeed in passing universal health care will be a disaster for Republicans that is worse than the failure of the Bush administration to deal with Katrina or the failure to discover WMD in Iraq. The middle class will love it, and the Democrats will lock up the middle class for a generation or more, much as they did after FDR passed Social Security.

Last night Hilzoy wrote Making It Explicit discussing this. Her conclusion is

Pethokoukis and Cannon claim that if Obama succeeds in passing health care, then people who might have been conservatives will like it, and will be more likely to vote for the people who passed it. This is unexceptional. An honest conservative might accept this claim and say: well, I guess our ideas are unpopular, so we'll just have to make our case more persuasively.

But that's not the conclusion they draw. Pethokoukis and Cannon say: because people will like health care reform, if we do not block it, our party will lose support. So precisely because people would like it if they tried it, we need to make sure that it fails.

At least they're honest about it.

This morning Steve Benen added his post THE RIGHT, HEALTHCARE, AND POLITICAL SURVIVAL.

Today, the circumstances are slightly different -- Democrats are in good shape and don't need their reputation "revived" -- but with the Pethokoukis and Cannon analyses in mind, history may repeat itself.

Remember, for Kristol then and Pethokoukis/Cannon now, it's not about the quality of the policy -- it's about political survival. If Democrats deliver, they'll be positioned to win over a generation of voters. Blocking (or "killing") a reform effort may undermine the public's needs, but it would also block Democrats from winning a historic victory.

With that in mind, the right will likely aggressively resist healthcare reform because, as a matter of electoral strategy, conservatives probably don't have a choice.

Essentially it's 1993 all over again. If the Democrats pass universal health care, the national Republican party will be relegated to the minority for a generation and they know it. So we can expect them to pull out all the stops to kill any health care bill.

Since these will be party line votes with heavy party discipline, it may have been a significant reason why Harry Reid and Barack Obama were willing to put up with Joe Lieberman's election campaign crap and leave him in as committee chairman just to make sure he did not bolt to the Republican Party. If Norm Coleman wins in Minnesota and Saxby Chambliss wins in Georgia, then the Democrats will almost certainly have to pull over two Republicans to defeat a filibuster by the Republican. As a Democrat, Lieberman is almost certainly a reliable vote to break a filibuster on this subject. That means Harry Reid only has to get two Republicans to break ranks - difficult but not impossible.

But if Joe went to the Republican caucus, or resigned and was replaced by a Republican Senator, then Harry Reid will need three Republican cross-overs. Paying off Joe to keep him in the caucus is a lot easier than getting that third Republican cross over.

It looks like Harry Reid and Barack Obama knew what they were doing with Joe Lieberman. Joe probably also knows.

---

Addendum 3:58 pm CST
Dday at Hullabaloo also writes on the Republican intention to block everything the Democrats attempt.

"A New Era Of Comity And Bipartisanship

by dday

Somebody forgot to tell Mitch McConnell.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Friday sent a message to Democrats that Republicans are not prepared to bend to a stronger majority.

In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), McConnell urged Reid to adopt a more conciliatory tone and warned him that Republicans will unite against Democrats if he does not. The letter was signed by all 40 GOP senators and two Republican incumbents who are awaiting the results of elections in Georgia and Minnesota.

This is the Senate GOP that obstructed practically every major bill that Democrats tried to bring up for the last two years. That's not going to stop, regardless of how many Republicans are planted in the Cabinet or throughout the federal bureaucracy. At this point, Republicans aren't interested in winning the next election, they're interested in stopping any popular policy and beating this country into the ground."

I wrote as early as last year that this Presidential election was going to be the nastiest in living memory. The Republicans certainly tried to make it so.

Now, though, they are going to get really serious about blocking any possible productive work out of the Congress.

They have to. They are in the "trapped rat" syndrome. They are absolutely convinced that if the Democrats do what they promised in the campaign, then the Republican Party will be relegated to the status of a minority party for the next generation.

They're right.

The problem is that their obstructionist tactics in the face of the collapsing economy are going to make their loss even greater. Unfortunately, their only alternative is to give up conservative extremism in the form of market fundamentalism, political evangelical social conservatism and the international aggression of the neocons. They'd rather gamble on obstructionism.

Lieberman keeps Committee Chair without penalty

By a vote of 42 to 13 the Democratic Senators in caucus agreed to permit rogue Independent Senator Joe Lieberman to keep the Chairmanship of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The spin out of the Democratic caucus is that he is giving up his seat on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, but as he points out in the interview this morning, because of the additional Democratic Senators Majority Leader Reid has enforced a rule that no Senator can chair more than one Committee. That allows the Chairmanships to be spread around. So the end result is that Joe gets off Scot-free for speaking lies against Obama and for appearing at the Republican National Convention.

Here is the video of the Press conference after the Democratic caucus.



Here is a copy of my letter to Senator Harry Reid.

November 18, 2008

Senator Harry Reid
528 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Subj: the refusal of Senate Democrats to act against Joe Lieberman

Dear Senator Reid:

The non-action action to strip Joe Lieberman of an irrelevant subcommittee is quite disgusting. Not surprising, from the spineless wimps in the Democratic caucus, but quite disgusting.

Joe has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not a Democrat, any more than Zell Miller was four years ago. Whatever comity you guys might think that you have gained in not publicly removing Lieberman from one of the most important chairmanships in the Senate, you are going to find out wasn’t worth the price. First, Joe simply is not a Democrat. He has turned on you before, and will do it again. It is only a matter of time. Second, you have lost my support and that of many Democrats.

I do not yet know how that loss of support will be shown, but rest assured I will work to see that you understand what you have done. You may think that because you Democratic Senators are much better than the extremists in the other party that you do not have to represent the Democratic base. You and the other 41 Senators who let Joe slide will find that what you want to do is going to be more difficult. Since we don’t know who the 13 sensible Democrats are, they will also be punished somehow.

I am writing to you because as a Texan I am not represented in the Senate. It is now clear that the same would have been true had Texas had a Democratic Senator. It looks like the closest representative I have in the federal government now is Barack Obama, and he had better act better then you Senators have done to keep any support.

Sincerely,

Here is a copy of my letter to Senator Joe Lieberman:

November 18, 2008

Senator Joe Lieberman
706 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Subj: Your disgusting behavior and speech in the Presidential campaign

Dear Senator Lieberman:

Apparently you have bamboozled the Democratic Senate Caucus into thinking that you are worth more inside the tent peeing out than you would be outside the tent peeing in.

I listened with great disgust as your friend Harry Reid sang your praises and bragged about your history as a Freedom Rider in the 60’s. That was something to be proud of, but you have ridden it too far. It was four decades ago.

Now you are no longer a Democrat, having been rejected by the Democrats in your state and having defeated the Democratic candidate to get your current Independent seat. You were needed to build a Democratic majority two years ago and you rode the power that gave you. Then you supported the radical right extremists of the Republican Party as John McCain was courting them to defeat Barack Obama for President. America is much better off that McCain and you lost the Presidential election.

Frankly, Senator Lieberman, you cannot be trusted any more than the radical right-wing crazies in the Republican Party. Perhaps you will recognize that the vote to strip you of your chairmanship was a serious rebuke by your colleagues. I doubt that you recognize that. Your power as a Senator has gone to your head, and the rest of us now have to be protected from you. Apparently the judgment of your peers is similarly flawed.

Trust has to be earned. It can be easily lost and becomes very hard to recover. You have lost whatever trust you had with Democrats, and I doubt the Republicans trust you either.

Remember that.

Sincerely,

Rachel Maddow presents the case against Joe Lieberman in the Democratic caucus

A number of Democratic Senators have recently said publicly that in the Democratic Senate caucus they think that Joe Lieberman should not be penalized for campaigning with the Republican candidate for President, John McCain and for harshly attacking Barack Obama. Rachel Maddow presents the case for why Lieberman should, at the very least, be removed as Chairman of the unique Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.




Maddow gets it exactly right. Lieberman has failed to use his committee to investigate the mishandling of Katrina as he promised during his reelection campaign. He prefers the policies and company of the Republicans who opposed Obama and who continue to oppose the Democratic party. In fact, Lieberman appears to prefer the Republican refusals to deal with the collapse of the American economy. It's also quite clear that if Lieberman remains in the Democratic caucus, he will not vote with the Democrats on high-profile issues.

Lieberman can be offered another committee. The one he is squatting on and not using is too valuable to waste on a man so unreliable and untrustworthy. Besides, inside the Democratic caucus or not, Joe Lieberman is not likely to be a reliable vote when he is really needed to break a filibuster by Republicans anyway.

---

Addendum 5:14 pm

Senator Patrick Leahy has come out against Lieberman.

"Every Senator will have to vote the way he or she believes they should," Leahy said, in a reference to the upcoming vote on Lieberman's fate in the Dem caucus next week. "I'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did."

"I felt some of the attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama...went way beyond the pale," Leahy continued. "I thought they were not fair, I thought they were not legitimate, I thought they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Senator Obama."

"I would feel that had I done something similar," Leahy concluded, "that I would not be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress."

Next, here's a statement from Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator who caucuses with the Democrats and will have a vote on whether Joe Lieberman keeps his committee chairmanship.

"To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country," Sanders in the statement sent our way by his office.

"Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in,'" Sanders continued. "I very much hope that Senator Lieberman stays in the Democratic caucus and is successful in regaining the confidence of those whom he has disappointed. This is not a time, however, in which he should be rewarded with a major committee chairmanship."

I especially agree with Bernie when he says that rewarding Lieberman for fighting against Obama's election was clearly not the way to bring change to the country. It's definitely not what I voted for.

Reid to Lieberman - you won't keep the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Harry Reid has reportedly told Joe Lieberman that he will not be allowed to keep the Chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He can have another committee, but not that one.

Senator Lieberman has replied through aides that if he cannot keep that committee he will switch to join the Republican caucus. Unfortunately for Joe, Ryan Grim of Politico writes:

A Republican Senate aide said Friday morning that there was little McConnell could offer in terms of high-ranking committee slots, which is why Lieberman is resisting overtures from the Republican side.

Steve Benen wonders why Lieberman is so dead set that he has to keep the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, then offers a likely explanation.

This seems to be routinely overlooked, but take a moment to consider what the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs actually does: it's the committee principally responsible for oversight of the executive branch. It's an accountability committee, charged with investigating the conduct of the White House and the president's administration.

As chairman of this committee for the last two years, Lieberman decided not to pursue any accusations of wrongdoing against the Bush administration. Lieberman's House counterpart -- Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee -- was a vigilant watchdog, holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching multiple investigations. Lieberman preferred to let his committee do no real work at all. It was arguably the most pathetic display of this Congress.

And yet, now Lieberman acts as if keeping this chairmanship is the single most important part of his public life. Why would he be so desperate to keep the gavel of a committee he hasn't used? I'll let you in on a secret: he wants to start using the power of this committee against Obama.

Lieberman didn't want to hold Bush accountable, but he seems exceedingly anxious to keep the committee that would go after Obama with a vengeance, effectively becoming a Waxman-like figure -- holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching investigations against the Democratic president.

That would fit with his recent attacks on Obama and his support for McCain.

My advice to the Senate Democrats - It's good riddance to bad rubbish. No one can trust Joe Lieberman, and leaving him on a powerful committee is stupid.

Besides, Hillary Clinton doesn't have a committee Chairmanship. She might like that one.

Joe Lieberman as McCain's Veep pick?

I understand that McCain is scheduled to announce his Veep pick tomorrow. He'll pretty well have to if he is going to do so before the Republican convention starts Monday, and it is an announcement that can be expected to reduce the Obama bounce from the Democratic Nomination Convention.

My best bet is Mitt Romney, but there is a lot of talk about McCain choosing his old friend and current supporter, Joe Lieberman. This has brought some interesting comments.

• Bob Novak, who recently retired because of brain cancer, has written a column entitled Avoiding a Lieberman Disaster which clearly advises against McCain choosing Lieberman.
  
• William Kristol thinks it's a good idea to choose Lieberman and writes to say so in his column A Joe of His Own?.
  
• Karl Rove is reported to have called Joe Lieberman and asked him to tell McCain not to choose Joe. Rove is reported to be pushing for Mitt Romney to be chosen for Veep.
  
• Very interestingly, David Brooks stated last night on the PBS commentary regarding the Democratic Convention that "...the OBVIOUS answer to the Dems successful mantra of McCain = Bush is for McCain to choose as his VP, get this, Joe Lieberman." When I heard Brooks say that that I wondered what Brooks was smoking, which appears to be a common reaction. Upon reflection that appears to be something caused by David Brooks status as a big Kahuna inside the Washington beltway pundits who think that by choosing a "Democrat" (even one rejected by his state Democratic Party) McCain can immunize himself from the toxic waste spread by George Bush' ultra-partisan manner of governing.

It looks like we will know McCain's choice tomorrow. McCain Has Made His Pick and Is Set to Tell on Friday.

I'll be extremely surprised if the choice is Lieberman. Surprised and delighted. Joe's pro-choice views will drive away a lot of Republican voters, and his closeness NeoCon-level support of the Iraq war as well as pushing for attacks on Iran is not going to attract many Democrats.

Besides, Joe, with his silly grin, simply doesn't look Presidential.

---

Addendum 3:32 pm CDT
Mark Kleiman offers an interesting take on the Lieberman-as-Repub-Veep issue.

Sullivan: McCain's plan is war, war and more war

Josh Marshall quoted Andrew Sullivan's complete reaction to to the Wall Street Journal editorial by Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham, then goes on to add to Sullivan's response.

Really. Do the American people really want to cut off all cooperation with Russia over controlling nuclear warheads and exchange of Intelligence on terrorist groups just so that we can start a new Cold War with Russia to defend Moldova and Azerbaijan? That's what Lieberman and Graham are suggesting, and these are two of the hotheaded war-lover McCain's closest advisers.

Go read the article by Josh Marshall, then confirm what
Lieberman and Graham wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

Then consider what Senator Pat Leahy thinks about McCain's current level of confusion. Sen. Leahy thinks McCain's current confusion is reminiscent of Reagan's, circa 1987. If this is correct, then McCain will be both extremely suggestible and less in control of his already well-known hot temper. Lieberman and Graham will be there to suggest war and threats of war - threats of war which might be intended as bluff but which might get out of hand, as apparently the Bush administration's egging Georgia's Saakishvili's Bear-baiting did.

Jewish voters like Obama a lot more than they do Joe Lieberman

This from the Huffington Post today:

Among the most high-profile Jews in Congress, Lieberman is viewed far more unfavorably than the presumptive Democratic nominee, according to a new poll. Only 37 percent of Jews view the Connecticut Independent in a favorable light compared to 48 percent who have a negative perception. As for Obama, 60 percent of Jews view him favorably while 34 percent view him unfavorably.

The findings were released as part of a recent survey of American Jews by the new progressive pro-Israel group J Street. They seem to upturn some of this year's conventional political wisdom.

Obama, who is set to travel to Israel this week, is often described in the press as facing significant obstacles to winning Jewish support, in part because of false claims that he is a Muslim. Lieberman, meanwhile, is regularly quoted disparaging Obama's credentials on topics considered dear to the Jewish voter's heart: toughness on Iran and support for the Jewish state. Asked recently whether he should be questioning Obama's commitment to Israel, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee responded, "why wouldn't I do that?"

Lieberman does score better among the 900 Jewish voters polled than other major political and religious figures. President Bush is viewed unfavorably by 74 percent of Jews, compared to 22 percent who see him in a positive light. McCain, meanwhile, is viewed favorably by just 34 percent of Jews, while 57 said they had a negative perception. On the lowest end of the spectrum stood Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was viewed favorably by just five percent of Jews and unfavorably by 68 percent.

For Lieberman, however, the findings present another piece of dreary news in a month filled with controversy. In early July, Quinnipiac University found that the Connecticut Senator's approval rating among his constituents had dropped to 45 percent, with 43 percent expressing disapproval. One week later, the Senator watched as a petition, signed by 43,000 individuals, was sent to members of the Senate's steering committee urging them to boot him from the party.

When the Senate Democrats strip Lieberman of his Senate committee assignments, I wonder if the Republicans will even want to accept him? If they do, it will only accentuate the dislike and disdain the public already has for Republicans and conservatives this year.

Lieberman stripped of superdelegate status for endorsing McCain

This is good news. Independent Senator Joe Lieberman will not be one of the Superdelegates at the Democratic national Convention in Denver this year because he endorsed McCain for President.

Lieberman criticizes Democrats for criticizing Maliki

Poor Joe. Apparently his Republican "friends" don't trust him enough to keep him informed of their next PR offensive. Within mere minutes of the time Joe Lieberman criticized Democrats for trashing Iraqi PM Maliki, the Republicans released "...excerpts of a new National Intelligence Estimate from our intelligence services that...criticized the performance of the Maliki government in terms that are awfully similar to the things Democrats have been saying."

I can understand why Joe has abandoned the Democrats and gotten cozy with the Republicans. Joe's sole purpose in life these days is to convince Americans to shed American blood fighting in the Middle East to defend the Israeli nation with it's right-wing Likud government and policies, and among Americans only the Republicans are willing to conduct such idiotic wars.

But you'd think that at least the Republicans would keep him in the loop regarding their intended propaganda operations, wouldn't you?

Unless they don't trust someone who has become a traitor to the Democratic Party like Joe has. If he'll stab his previous Democratic friends in the back, perhaps his new Republican friends feel they need to be cautious around him.

Bipartisanship - the new Republican meme to protect them from their failures

Anyone else notice that the media suddenly started demanding that the Democrats act in a bipartisan manner right after the Republicans lost big in the midterm elections?

I have found the idea utterly insulting. The Republicans have ruled this government on the basis of 50% plus one vote since before Bush as appointed to office. When they controlled both houses of Congress they didn't even invite Democrats to the committee meetings to reconcile legislation between the House and the Senate. "Bipartisanship" was a bad word in Tom Delay's House of Representatives. The Republicans took control of the Texas House in 2004 and rammed redistricting through without any hint of bipartisanship.

But now that the Republicans are out of control of Congress, suddenly bipartisanship has become the All-American virtue, and the absence of it has become somehow a failure of the Democrats!

Sorry. I don't want compromise with Fascists, Communists, or Republicans. They have all proven that they are out to screw me and America over, and they should all get their punishment - like Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Jack Abramoff have. Bipartisanship with untrustworthy people who are out to get you is a very bad idea!

Digby reminded me of what a really, really bad idea bipartisanship is. So does watching Joe Lieberman play footsie with the gutter slime Republicans.

The "Bipartisanship" meme is just another effort by the Republicans to avoid losing power after the voters have rejected them and everything they stand for.

Lieberman planned strategy with the Republicans

Sen. Lieberman knows who his friends are - and they aren't Democrats. From CQPolitics.Com:

Lieberman has taken his alliance with GOP leaders up a notch. During the abortive debate on the defense authorization bill, he attended daily tactical sessions to help them plan their strategy for combatting anti-war amendments and their rhetorical points for use against the Democrats. And in a fitting symbolic twist, some of those meetings convened just down the hall from the office of Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who essentially owes his 51-seat majority to Lieberman’s continued caucusing with the Democrats.

Before the Democrats realized they could not break a GOP filibuster and set aside their anti-war crusade last week, the meetings were the main forum for developing the GOP counterpunching strategy. For example, the group — which typically included GOP leaders such as Minority Whip Trent Lott of Mississippi and prominent supporters of the war such as John McCain of Arizona — decided to highlight a Lieberman amendment that would have required the administration to report on Iranian support for attacks against coalition forces in Iraq.

Lieberman presented it as a consensus proposal. “Whether you are for or against the war,” he said on the floor, “I hope we can all find common ground in making this statement.” They almost could: It was adopted, 97-0. But Republicans immediately sought to put Democrats on the defensive. At a news conference with Lieberman and GOP leaders, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham said, “If you believe that everything in Sen. Lieberman’s amendment is true, how could you engage in a strategy that would at the end of the day allow Iran to be successful?”

Joe better enjoy his popularity now. Next election there are 22 Republican Senate seats and only 11 Democratic ones up for election. Odds are that the Democrats will gain an increased margin in the Senate. Joe is a known backstabber. The Democrats are going to have nothing to do with him, and the Republicans aren't likely to trust someone who practices backstabbing as a way of life.

Joe has about 18 more months of popularity. After that he is going to be a very lonely man. Maybe the traitor Bob Novak will still be around to interview him.

The "Independent Democrat" Lieberman - who is neither independent nor a Demcrat

Let's remember back to the days of yore - Spring and Summer of 2006. Then Sen. Joe Lieberman, the guy Al Gore had chosen to run with him in 2000 as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, was running for reelection as a Pro-War, anti-abortion, anti-birth control for rape victims Democrat. Fortunately the Connecticut Democrats were suspicious of Joe and to his great surprise forced him to run in a primary. Then Joe lost the Democratic Primary.

Remember that? The Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, was even more incompetent than most Republicans which made it look like an easy pickup the Senate Seat for the Democratic candidate.

Joe did not like that. If he lost his Senate seat he would have to stop palling around with all the rich and powerful in Washington, D.C. where he really preferred to be anyway, so apparently he promised the Republicans that he would become a Republican if they financed his reelection. but since the Republican Party in Connecticut was a recognized joke, he had to stay as a nominal Democrat in order to win reelection over the real Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont.

Since the Republicans (as well as everyone else) thought they only had six weak Senate seats and the Democrats would have to sweep them all to win control of the Senate, it was extremely unlikely that the Republicans would lose the Senate and it would be helpful to them to have a Democrat in name only to help them. They could finance Lieberman's campaign, freeze out their own candidate Alan Schlesinger who wasn't going to win anyway, and have some help from Joe when they passed more legislation to screw the American people and nation over. So that's what they did. They financed Joe instead of the Republican and he carried enough nominal Democrats to squeak back into the Senate for six more years. It all worked as planned, although the Democrats almost swept those Senate races in contention, with the single exception that the Democratic Candidate Harold Ford lost the Senate race in Tennessee.

What no one had counted on was that the Democratic Senate candidate, James H. Webb ran an especially strong race while the incumbent Republican Virginia Senator George Allen self-destructed by exposing his strong racism in front of a camera. The exposure was immediately placed on the Internet had suddenly, the Democrats had control of the Senate as well as the House. At least, as long as Joe Lieberman did not switch parties.

Switch parties? Joe? What could the Republican party offer him that would make him as important as the single swing Senator? Nothing, really. So Joe remains a Republican-talking and -voting self-labeled Independent Democratic Senator who caucuses with the Democrats but votes Republican.

So why am I rehashing all this ancient history? Because Joe is continuing to be Joe. All smiles and "Glad-to-see-you" up front with his well-practiced back-stabbing hand right behind every Democrat he can get near.

Thursday night (tonight) Joe is co-hosting a fund-raiser for the incumbent Senator of Maine. And the problem? The Senator he wants reelected from Maine is Republican Senator Susan Collins.

CNN reports that this kind of perfidy is not going unnoticed.

In an e-mail sent to supporters, the anti-war group MoveOn.org called tonight’s event “absurd,” labeling it “Joe Lieberman’s Republican fundraiser.” The event, which will be held in Washington, is being co-hosted by Lieberman and Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

MoveOn.org is working to counter Lieberman’s efforts by raising money for Collins’ 2008 Senate opponent, Democratic congressman Tom Allen. As of Thursday afternoon, MoveOn had raised over $200,000 for Allen in just over 48 hours. Allen’s campaign said it welcomed the support.

Moveon.org could use some money to work against these Republicans. Go on over there as consider how much you can contribute.

Removing Susan Collins from the Senate in 2008 will take a lot of the power that Joe Lieberman currently has in that body. That will be of benefit to every American who is not stealing the government blind and who is opposed to letting others do it.

---

But first, send money to Digby.

Run! Hide! Sky is Falling! Iranians training Terrorists! Run! Run! Hide!! Kill Someone!!

Independent senator Joe Lieberman just told Bob Schieffer today on "Face the Nation" that the Iranians are training Iraqi terrorists to kill Americans at a location in Iraq. Joe made it sound like the Iranians are training al Qaeda and that we have to take out the training location as a part of the Global War on Terror. Bob responded to Joe's assertion by saying "I think you have made some news here today."

I find several things wrong with this. First, Joe Lieberman seems to be a strange person to provide this information to the public. I would have expected something like this to come from the White House, or at the lowest level, from the Pentagon. Why would the administration give this story to Joe Lieberman to put out on Sunday Morning, particularly a Sunday Morning in which Tony Snow has been on the talk show circuit? Second, I don't really trust Joe Lieberman. If he says it is raining, I'm going to walk to the window and look outside, and if it looks like rain, I'm going to double-check to see if it is really wet.

So I decided to check this story out on the Internet.

First Story: From today's The Independent we get a reprint of a story written by Phil Sands in Baghdad and originally published April 15, 2007. It is entitled "Iran trains 'thousands' of Iraqi insurgents.

Thousands of Iraqi Shias are being trained in advanced guerrilla warfare tactics at a secret camp near the Iranian capital, according to militants who say they have spent time there.

Through an Iraqi intermediary who also went to Iran, The Independent on Sunday spoke to two seasoned guerrilla fighters. They said large numbers of Mahdi Army volunteers loyal to the maverick Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr had gone to the base in Jalil Azad, near Tehran, for instruction.

Abu Amer, a 39-year-old Mahdi Army fighter who asked that his full name not be used, said he had been trained by instructors he believed were from Iran's Revolutionary Guard. "Shia fighters are being trained in modern fighting methods, such as use of powerful explosives and bringing down helicopters," he told the IoS. [Note: IoS is "Independent on Sunday."]

So it is an old story, and it involves an assertion that the Iranian Shia Revolutionary Guard is training members of Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's militia in terrorist methods of fighting.

Besides being an old story, what is the surprise? The Mahdi Army is the major Iraqi Shia militia, is a well-known ally of the Iranian Shias, and has coordinated with the Iraqi government very little. The Mahdi Army is also a major opponent of the Sunni insurgents and can be expected to be fighting the Sunni militias as soon as the U.S. military stops fighting them. If there is any significant connection between al Qaeda, al Qaeda-in-Iraq, or any of the terrorists who have been involved in 9/11 or in the terrorist incidents in Europe it certainly has not been reported in the news. The Mahdi Army and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are long-time allies. This support for the Mahdi Army is no surprise, and no significant threat to America.

Second story: On April 11, 2007 FOX News published an AP story entitled "U.S. Military: Iran Training Iraqi Insurgents in Using Roadside Bombs."

BAGHDAD — Iran has been training Iraqi fighters in Iran on the assembly of deadly roadside bombs known as EFPs, the U.S. military spokesman said on Wednesday.

"We know that they are being in fact manufactured and smuggled into this country, and we know that training does go on in Iran for people to learn how to assemble them and how to employ them. We know that training has gone on as recently as this past month from detainees debriefs," Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the U.S. military spokesman, said at a weekly briefing.

EFP stands for explosively formed penetrator, deadly roadside bombs that hurl a fist-size lump of molten copper capable of piercing armor.

In January, U.S. officials said at least 170 U.S. soldiers had been killed by EFPs.

Caldwell also said on Wednesday that the U.S. military had evidence that Iranian intelligence agents were active in Iraq in funding, training and arming Shiite militia fighters.

OK. EFPs. There has been a consistent stream of misinformation in the American Press (and especially pushed by FOX) that has tried to claim that Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP's) are so sophisticated that they can only come from Iran. I have previously debunked this at:

• How close are we now to war with Iran now?,
• Remember those EFPs that could only come from Iran?,
• Anyone can make an EFP and
• Are the EFP's actually from Iran? Or is it another Bush effort to start a new war?.

Third story, this time from CNN published April 12, 2007. The title is "Iraqi insurgents being trained in Iran, U.S. says."

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi insurgents are being trained in Iran to assemble weapons and Iranian-made weapons are still turning up in Iraq, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

The statement comes two months after the United States said it had asked Tehran to stop the flow of weapons into Iraq.

Coalition forces found a cache of Iranian rockets and grenade launchers in Baghdad on Tuesday, spokesman U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Wednesday.

What can I say? This is more of the same effort to whip up war hysteria in the U.S. against Iran. First - rockets and grenade launchers are ubiquitous around the world. Like EFPs, any partially industrialized nation can make them. It is rarely necessary because the two largest arms suppliers in the world (the U.S. and Russia) are always ready to supply one side or the other of every conflict. When one of those two aren't ready to send out new weapons, the supply of used small arms that hangs over the market is tremendous. Every temporary peace treaty or armistice adds to it.

Second - Iran is sitting on the extremely long border of an unstable nation that is being pressured by its occupier and most significant enemy to become a base for an attack on Iran. Any nation that wanted to survive would be arming, training and supporting its allies in Iraq. That's exactly the same as our training and arming of the military and police in Mexico, Colombia, Haiti, and dozens of other states. The purpose of that effort is to make the supported nations more stable and less of a threat to the defending nation. Iran is one of the longest existing civilizations on Earth, and is not run by fools. They will take the necessary actions to defend themselves. The same is true for Moqtada al-Sadr. al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is the necessary militia intended to defend a minority Shia sect in an unstable, probably failed, nation state. The Mahdi Army needs to take its allies where it can find them, and the U.S. need not apply for ally status. Not that the Bush administration ever would. But the thing is, the actions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are defensive, as are the actions of Mogtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. They and their small arms are not threats to the American Homeland, and wouldn't bother the U.S. military if we didn't have them in Iraq for the purpose of threatening Iran.

I'm not saying that Iran could not be a real threat to the United States, though I really doubt that Iran would ever be as big a threat as North Korea (which can't currently effectively attack the U.S. due to distance) or Pakistan, or Libya, or India for that matter. I am saying that the propaganda being pushed on the American public to allow military strikes against Iran do not address that possibility of a threat in any way.

That the Revolutionary Guard might train Mahdi Army members is no surprise and no real danger to the American Homeland, and for all the scary headings, this is all the reports have to offer. Iranians providing low-level military training to their Iraqi co-religionists. The same Mahdi Militia members could get the same training (and on much the same equipment, interestingly enough) from the U.S. military if they joined the Iraqi Army or Iraqi Police Forces, and many of them do exactly that. The only likely difference is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards probably don't need to offer as much training on defusing EFPs as the Americans do. Just building them.

Other related stories: Additional similar stories can be found at Google, but they are all older than the ones from April 2007 or from the same time and repeat the same material.

My conclusion

I don't think that Joe Lieberman did make any real news today. He seems to be attempting to recycle the anti-Iranian propaganda stories that popped up in the American Press last April. So the question is why is he attempting to recycle the old stories? [Note: this may be the first of several efforts to recycle the old stories. That's how I would manage this kind of propaganda operation. Sourcing it with Sen. Lieberman makes me suspicious that there is no new Intelligence being marketed and will be none.]

My best guess is that Joe is practicing as the Independent Senator from Connecticut and from Israel. He wants the U.S. to attack Iran because Iran is the direct source of much of the Middle East threat to Israel. While I don't think Iran is a really significant threat to the U.S., it is a major source of danger to Israel. Israelis have a really good reason to fear Iran, and if they can get someone to take Iran on they at least feel safer. As a result, I suspect that someone handed Joe the previous stories from April and has been trying to get him to recycle them. Joe's motivation is very similar to that of the NeoCons in general (or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) who really believed that if America were to attack and occupy the clearly weak nation of Iraq then America could put long-term military pressure on Iran and keep Iran bottled up as a threat to its neighbors.

Widespread public fear tends to bring right-wing militarists to the surface in politics. Those same right-wing militarists do not want interference from others who would sacrifice some of the ability to conduct military activities in order to reduce tensions between opposing nations. Iran has been supporting Hamas and increasing the fear in Israel, and the Israeli militarists have found allies in the American militarists who were surfaced by the attack on 9/11.

Joe Lieberman has found a home in the right-wing militarist elements of both America and Israel, (as have the American NeoCons) and I doubt that he sees much Joe sees much distinction between the two nations.

That's why Joe dropped his (dated) so-called Intelligence on "Face the Nation" today. That's also why we can safely ignore it.

---

Addendum June 11, 2007 8:13 AM CDT
Here is a report from "The Newshoggers" about The Sen. from Israel's ridiculous statement on "Face the Nation" yesterday. In it Cernig points to the new article at NRO by the well-known NeoCon, Michael Ledeen, advocating an American attack on Iran in support of Israel. [Note: this is the same NeoCon "Michael Ledeen" who has long-term close connections with Italian Intelligence services as well as with Dick Cheney and is suspected of connection with the forged "Niger Letters" used by the Bush administration as justification for the peremptory invasion of Iraq.]

The speed with which Ledeen got his article out in support of Joe Lieberman demonstrates the fact that Lieberman's statement on FtN yesterday really was the opening salvo of a propaganda effort to get America to attack Israel's enemy, Iran.

Glenn Greenwald also identified the sources of Lieberman's propaganda effort. What I found particularly interesting was these quotations:

"Israeli Minister Avigdor Lieberman (whose duties include strategic affairs and Iran) visited the U.S. earlier this year, and gave an interview to The New York Times in which he said this:

"Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach to the Iranian problem," which he called "the biggest threat facing the Jewish people since the Second World War.” [Minister] Lieberman insisted that negotiations with Iran were worthless: "The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just like it was with North Korea."

The same month, the current Israeli Prime Minister echoed those sentiments:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday compared Iran's nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel with the policies of Nazi Germany and criticized world leaders who maintain relations with Iran's president. . . .

Israel has identified Iran as the greatest threat to the Jewish state. Israel's concerns have heightened since the election of Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and has questioned whether the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews took place.

It should be clear that the panicky propaganda of the Israeli right-wing militarists do not really create a problem that the U.S. needs to go to war with Iran to solve. In fact, the opposite is much more likely to be the case. The militaristic panic out of the Israeli right-wing extremists and their American fellow-travelers is very likely the source of many of the problems America is facing, and much of the solution will involve getting those right-wingers out of American decision-making and expose their propaganda every time they surface.

Lieberman can't flip the Senate

Most of us, remembering when Sen. Jacobs switched from the Republicans to Independent in 2001, it switched control of the Senate from Republican to Democrat. So we have been thinking that if Joe Lieberman got mad at the Democrats and switched to caucus with the Republicans, then the same thing would happen and the Senate would switch from Democrat to Republican control. Only - the rules aren't the same this time. From the Political Insider:

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.

So while the despicable Joe can cause some problems, he can't give the Senate to the Republicans.

By himself.

---

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings goes on the describe the whole thing about "Senate Organizing Resolutions."