Leaked Cable: McCain Promised Qaddafi To Help Secure Military Equipment From U.S.

By Ali Gharib/Think Progress

For all the braying by the Senate’s top three hawks about how the U.S. wasn’t doing enough to oust Libyan dictator Col. Muammar Qaddafi from power, one might be surprised to learn that exactly two years ago, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were in Tripoli meeting with the erratic leader and giving him assurances that relations between the nations were on the mend.

According to a leaked August 2009 U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks recounting the Senators’ junket, the neoconservative Connecticut Senator captured the dynamic of aligning with a brutal dictator:

Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting thatcommon enemies sometimes make better friends.

Qaddafi’s history as a top enemy of the U.S. stretched back decades, but his change of heart came quickly after the U.S. invaded Iraq under the pretense of Saddam Hussein’s development of weapons of mass destruction. Hawks seized on Libya’s détente with the West as a sign that Bush’s tough actions in Iraq were having a ripple effect, though patently not, as Iraq War boosters had predicted, with regard to democratic reforms. “We never would have guessed ten years ago that we would be sitting in Tripoli, being welcomed by a son of Muammar al-Qaddafi,” said Lieberman, according to the leaked cable.

The three Senate hawks discussed in detail the Qaddafi regime’s security needs with Libyas National Security Adviser, Qaddafi’s son Muatassim. According to the cable:

5.(C) Senator McCain assured Muatassim that the United States wanted to provide Libya with the equipment it needs for its [a Libyan security program]. He stated that he understood Libya’s requests regarding the rehabilitation of its eight C130s [a transport plane] and pledged to see what he could do to move things forward in Congress. He encouraged Muatassim to keep in mind the long-term perspective of bilateral security engagement and to remember that small obstacles will emerge from time to time that can be overcome.

At another point, McCain and Graham reiterated pledges to push to fulfill the Qaddafi regime requests at the Pentagon and on the Hill:

Senators McCain and Graham conveyed the U.S. interest in continuing the progress of the bilateral relationship and pledged to try to resolve the C130 issue with Congress and Defense Secretary Gates.

But 18 months later, Qaddafi reacted to mass protests by mobilizing his military, bringing down international condemnation and, in just a few short weeks, a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force. The U.S. and it’s allies in NATO and elsewhere rained down bombs to hold Qaddafi’s forces at bay as rebels organized a coherent opposition council. As the rebels went on the offensive, Western and allied bombers lent them air support with surveillance and tactical bombings.

When suddenly — as if Qaddafi’s repression had emerged from out of the blue — McCain and his clique returned to their perches as the staunchest advocates of U.S. military action in Liyba, taking to the airwaves to lament the U.S.’s mere three-week delay to build international consensus and calling for arming the Libyan rebels.

Just as the political winds around Qaddafi seemed to determine the senators’ stand — for him when it was convenient as a win for the Bush administration, and against him when the uprising began and in the month it took to rally the Security Council — McCain and Graham took a curious political shot at Obama just as Qaddafi’s regime crumbled. In a statement, they thanked everyone but the U.S. Starting with the Libyans themselves, they went on to

also commend our British, French, and other allies, as well as our Arab partners, especially Qatar and the UAE, for their leadership in this conflict. Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.

One wonders if August 2009 was too soon to press Qaddafi on the well-being of his people: there’s no hint of democratic reforms, or indeed the Libyan people, in the WikiLeaks cable.

Lieberman Gets A Chuckle Out Of Peddling Far-Right Nuke Myth

By Max Bergmann

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), once a reliable vote in favor of nuclear arms reduction efforts, has now bought into the right-wing myth that our nuclear arsenal is deteriorating and that the U.S. needs to build new nuclear weapons. Lieberman on Fox News Sunday said he is “real hesitant” to vote for a New START treaty unless the US effectively builds new nuclear weapons:

LIEBERMAN: Anytime we are working on something with our old Cold War enemy, Russia, cooperatively, it’s a good sign. Anything we can do to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in the world is a positive development. But in my opinion as we reduce the number of nuclear warheads… we have to make darn sure that are nuclear warheads are capable and modern and a lot of them are decades old. So I feel very strongly that I am going to be real hesitant to vote for this treaty unless we have a commitment from the Administration that they are prepared to modernize our nuclear stockpile.

In a demonstration of just how seriously Lieberman is taking these issues, as Chris Wallace shifted the conversation — noting that the treaty would need 9 Republican votes instead of 8 since “Lieberman was gone” — Lieberman audibly chuckled. Watch it:

On the one hand, this should mean that Lieberman’s vote is a slam dunk. The Obama administration has already demonstrated a massive commitment to modernizing the nuclear weapons infrastructure. Vice President Biden in a speech in February attacked the Bush administration for neglecting the nuclear infrastructure and called for a dramatic 10 percent annual increase in its budget.

But what Lieberman is really saying is that he agrees with those on the far right that want to needlessly build new nuclear weapons, nearly two decades years after the end of the Cold War. The far right insists that the U.S. is falling behind because it is not building new nuclear weapons and that our existing nuclear arsenal is deteriorating. This is a myth and demonstrates a complete, if not willful, ignorance of our approach to maintaining our nuclear weapons.

The U.S. continuously refurbishes and renovates its existing weapons, such that it doesn’t have to build new ones. This is by definition modernization. These refurbishing programs are getting the job done, according to an independent panel of scientific experts, called the JASON advisory group. As long as we continue these programs, as the Obama administration has committed to do, there is no need to build new nuclear warheads and weapons.

Yet building new nukes, along with conducting new nuclear tests, has become a right-wing dream. Lieberman is therefore willing to vote against a treaty — something that would have dire consequences for the US-Russia relationship, our mission in Afghanistan, and the entire nuclear non-proliferation regime — in order to symbolically demonstrate his support for the far-right’s dangerous nuclear agenda.

Lieberman: ‘It’s Possible’ I Could Be ‘A Good Old-Fashioned New England Moderate Republican’

By Matt Corley

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) supported Republican John McCain and attacked then-candidate Obama while speaking at the Republican National Committee. Though he currently caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, Lieberman has repeatedly stated that he views running for re-election in 2012 as an option.

In an interview on Connecticut’s Face The State program this weekend, Lieberman once again said that it was “possible” he could run for re-election as a Republican. Noting that “it would be harder, to be honest, to get the nomination in the Democratic party,” Lieberman said that while he is “most likely” to remain an independent, he could see himself as a Republican:

HOST: Could you see yourself being a Republican or is that…

LIEBERMAN: It’s possible.

HOST:…far-fetched.

LIEBERMAN: Yeah, yeah. No, it’s possible. A good old-fashioned New England moderate Republican.

Watch it:

Lieberman has also suggested that he would “support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the elections in 2010.” In a separate part of the interview, Lieberman suggested that he was open to endorsing Republican Linda McMahon in a Senate race against Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal if she wins her primary with former Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT).

It’s not clear, however, how helpful Lieberman’s support would be for any candidate in the Senate race. A recent Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey found that Lieberman had “a 25 percent approval rating with 67 percent of his constituents giving him bad marks.” To demonstrate how disliked Lieberman is by CT Democrats, PPP notes that “Barack Obama’s approval rating with Connecticut Republicans is higher than Lieberman’s with the state’s Democrats.”

Transcript:

HOST: Should you run again, there are three routes you could take. You could be an independent again.

LIEBERMAN: Yeah.

HOST: You could be a Democrat or even a Republican.

LIEBERMAN: Yeah.

HOST: Let’s talk about these three possibilities.

LIEBERMAN: Right.

HOST: Where do you see yourself going? Is there a way back to become a full-fledged Democrat or is that a bridge burned.

LIEBERMAN: No, I don’t think it’s burned. You know, I’ve been a Democrat all my life. I mean there is a way in which — look, at the beginning of the ‘06 campaign, it was really at the end of ‘05, people working my campaign, interestingly said to me in a private meeting after some polling, you should think about running as an independent. Because it’s going to be real hard in the Democratic primary based on the position I was taking on the Iraq war, which I know it was an unpopular position in the Democratic party, but I felt, it was what I felt was right for our country. So I said, no, you know, I’ve been a Democrat all my life. The party on this issue really doesn’t agree with me, but I’m going to put my confidence in the people and the party and I’m not going to leave, walk away from the party. If they want to kick me out, that’s there decision. That’s obviously what happened. At least they decided not to nominate me again. So, and let me come back to you question. I’d say, I haven’t really focused on it, but I’d say from the get go, anyone of these…it’s good, to paraphrase Mel Brooks, it’s good to be an independent. It gives me latitude. I could run possibly on any of the three. Probably it would be harder, to be honest, to get the nomination in the Democratic party. Not impossible, it’d be harder. But I must tell you that at this moment in our political life, which is so partisan and almost tribal, you know. And it’s not good for the country, not good for our state. I like being an independent, so if you ask me, I’d say that’s probably the most likely of the choices.

HOST: Could you see yourself being a Republican or is that…

LIEBERMAN: It’s possible.

HOST:…far-fetched.

LIEBERMAN: Yeah, yeah. No, it’s possible. A good old-fashioned New England moderate Republican.

Poll: Lieberman’s favorability rating has plummeted in the past two weeks.

By Zaid Jilani In recent weeks, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has faced ire from advocates for the public option, which he successfully forced the Senate to drop from its legislation by threatening to filibuster it. Now, a new CNN poll has found that Lieberman’s “favorable ratings have taken almost a 10-point drop in the past two weeks“:

Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-Conn.) favorable ratings have taken almost a 10-point drop in the past two weeks, a new poll found.

31 percent of people told a CNN poll conducted Dec. 16-20 that they had a favorable opinion of Lieberman, a key Senate centrist who’d opposed healthcare reform only until recently. Opinion toward Lieberman, though, was down from a 40 percent favorable rating in the same CNN poll conducted December 2-3 of this year.

Poll respondents’ unfavorable opinion of Lieberman ticked upward over the same period. 34 percent of those polled said they now have an unfavorable opinion of Lieberman, compared to 28 percent who have an unfavorable opinion.

Michael Moore ‘holds Connecticut responsible’ for public option failure

By Daniel Tencer Progressive filmmaker Michael Moore has called for a boycott of the state of Connecticut if voters there don't start an effort to unseat Sen. Joe Lieberman.

"People of Connecticut: What have u done 2 this country?" Moore asked in a Tweet Wednesday afternoon. "We hold u responsible. Start recall of Lieberman 2day or we'll boycott your state."

Lieberman has been the focus of progressive anger since he announced late last week that he would vote against the Senate health care reform bill if the bill included a Medicare buy-in provision that would allow some people aged 55 to 64 to buy into the government-run seniors' health care program.

That provision was a compromise that Senate Democrats put forward in exchange from removing a public option for health care from the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid removed that compromise from the bill on Monday night.

But there is one problem with Moore's call for a recall of the Connecticut senator: There is no mechanism to recall US senators, and Connecticut's own constitution doesn't provide one.

In calling for Lieberman's recall, Moore appeared to be following in the footsteps of House Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), who called for a recall of the independent senator on Tuesday.

“No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I’ll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled,” DeLauro told Politico.

"Memo to Michael Moore and any other frustrated lefties out there: There is no such thing as a congressional recall. So until 2012, we're all stuck with Joe," writes Eric Kleefeld at TalkingPointsMemo.

Lamont: Lieberman "Dithering" On Health Care

By Sam Stein/Huffy Post

One of Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) most strident critics accused him of "dithering" on health care reform after the Independent stated that he would consider sustaining a filibuster of the legislation.

Ned Lamont, who beat Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary only to lose to the senator in the general election (after Lieberman defected from the party), accused his one-time opponent of posturing for attention in making his filibuster threat.

"I think he wanted to rush to war now he wants to dither on health care," Lamont told the Huffington Post. "You don't have to posture. You just have to sit down and talk to your fellow Democrats and move this thing along."

"To me, a filibuster is just a way to avoid the issue," Lamont added. "Rather than do a press release he should be sitting down with his fellow senators."

Lamont would go on to insist that some of Lieberman's major objections to the health care bill were bunk. People in Connecticut, he said, support a public option for insurance coverage in part because it could expand coverage but also because it would result in lower costs -- something that he appreciated , as a business leader. Lamont also noted that by adding an opt-out clause for states to the public plan, Lieberman's concerns that this would resemble a new entitlement program were essentially moot.

"What he is saying is 'I don't want Connecticut to have the opportunity to even opt in,'" he said.

As for getting Lieberman back in the fold, Lamont didn't have a solution. He encouraged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to make reform more palatable to moderate Republicans so as to make Lieberman's opposition irrelevant. He then conceded that such a scenario remains unlikely if the package also includes a public plan.

"I would make the case to everyone on the floor... that this is just a choice, it is an option, it is competitive," Lamont said. "It gives us a shot and let's us play into a bigger pool.... If Harry Reid makes that case, I think he will be able to get some folks behind it that will surprise you."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/lamont-lieberman-ditherin_n_335869.html

Lieberman jokes about running in 2012 as a Republican.

By Matt Corley This morning, Politico reported on how some Democratic senators are already preparing for their reelection efforts in 2012, “boosting their campaign coffers, raising millions for an election that is still 37 months away.” In an interview, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) joked that he could potentially run as a Republican:Several Senate Democrats up in 2012 have already joined the million-dollar club, including Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Bill Nelson of Florida, Dianne Feinstein of California and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, as well as independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who caucuses with Senate Democrats. Several more are expected to surpass the million-dollar mark when the latest round of campaign finance reports is released Oct. 15.

Lieberman, who had $1.4 million through June 30, said he was unsure whether he would run in 2012 as a Democrat or an independent.

“Or a Republican,” Lieberman jokingly added. “I have all sorts of options.”

Some Democrats might not find Lieberman’s joke very funny. After Lieberman bucked his party and supported Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for president — even delivering a speech at the Republican National Convention — some of his Senate colleagues wanted him to be punished, with some suggesting that he should lose his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Instead, they let him off with slap on the wrist.