* Homegirl: A fellow female gang member

Now that Joe Lieberman is on track to kill meaningful health care reform, it might behoove us to consider the folks who have enabled this Benedict Arnold – such as our own Claire McCaskill. Remember when McCaskill voted to retain Joe Lieberman as chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs? According to a member of her staff, she did so, in spite of his support of John McCain, because it was necessary to begin “moving past the election and working together because there are a lot of challenges.”  Right on Claire! Leiberman is responsible for a lot of unnecessary challenges.

But this is not all – McCaskill has continued to, as Sarah Palin would put it, pal around with Lieberman. Remember when McCaskill joined Lieberman in a bipartisan “gang” of six senators to look for a Republican-lite health care reform soluton? Or when she, together with Lieberman and a small group of obstructionist Democrats, fell all over themselves to  publicly praise Max Bauchus’ weak-tea bill?

When one examines Lieberman’s shifting positions – first he was for a Medicare buy-in, now he is against it – it is hard to believe that he is influenced by anything more substantial than spite and and a desire to earn the $448,066 in campaign contributions he has received from the insturance industry. (It is now being reported that insurance stocks are soaring on the strength of Lieberman’s flip-flop.) If this is what it means to be a “moderate,” perhaps McCaskill should reconsider her alliances and change her rhetoric accordingly; instead of pointing out how tough she will be if the Senate bill does not bring down costs, she could start emphasizing that so far, all proposals do just that. Of course, then she wouldn’t be mentioned as a kindred spirit in all the Lieberman reportage.

One assumes, or at least hopes, that McCaskill, unlike her buddy Lieberman, is not out-and-out corrupt, but rather wishes to mollify the purplish constituents that she consistently privileges. Here again, though, she should be careful. Polls are showing that willingness to equivocate and temporize in the face of progressive change may create an unwelcome blowback in upcoming elections. Nasty little pols like Lieberman are hurting the Democratic brand – and that can’t be too good for McCaskill in the long run.

Nov. 14, 4:48 pm: Slightly corrected – missing link added.

Joe Lieberman assumes everyone is stupid. His assumption is correct when it comes to our useless old media. It’s too bad for Joe Lieberman that Al Gore (you remember him Joe?) had a hand in the development of the Internet. We can now easily search for all kinds of information.

Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign

Brian Beutler | November 21, 2009, 9:15PM

….”This is a kind[ ]of 11th hour addition to a debate that’s gone on for decades,” Lieberman told reporters tonight. “Nobody’s ever talked about a public option before. Not even in the presidential campaign last year.”

I asked in response, “How do you reconcile your contention that the public option wasn’t part of the presidential campaign given that all three of the [leading Democratic] candidates had something along the lines of the public option in their white papers?’

“Not really, not from what I’ve seen. There was a little–there was a line about the possibility of it in an Obama health care policy paper,” Lieberman said….

[emphasis added]

Disingenuous putz.

From the Obama campaign, September, 2007 (pdf):

….If you do not have insurance you can choose to enroll in the new public plan, which will offer benefits similar to what every federal employee and member of Congress gets. Or you can choose private plan options through the national health exchange…

[emphasis added]

Uh, Joe, the Internets are forever. Or until some narcissistic group of putzes does something to pull the plug.

By they way, thanks for nothing, Claire.

This is not working out so well for the rest of us, either.

Remember this?: Senator Claire McCaskill (D) voted to keep Joe Lieberman as chair of Homeland Security

So, was it all worth it for that subcommittee chair?

Or, how about this?: Now what, Claire?

As if that November 2008 vote to let Joe Lieberman retain his chairmanship made any difference.

Lieberman: Sure, I’d Filibuster A Health Care Reform Bill With A Public Option

Brian Beutler | October 27, 2009, 1:25PM

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told reporters today that he would in fact filibuster any health care bill he doesn’t agree with–and right now, he doesn’t agree with the public option proposal making its way through the Senate…

Just great. Just freakin’ great.

Ah yes, the “Dick Cheney Doesn’t Want To Visit The Hague On A Really Extended Trip Act”:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 8, 2009

…Lieberman, Graham Pledge to Fight to Adopt Detainee Photo Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC — Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) today issued the following statement on the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations bill:

“We strongly believe that the first responsibilities of government are the nation’s security and the protection of those brave Americans who go into harm’s way to defend it.

“The President has said that the release of the photos of detainees in US custody would ‘put our troops and civilians serving our nation abroad in greater danger.’ We agree with the Commander in Chief.

“We will employ all the legislative means available to us including opposing the supplemental war spending bill and attaching this amendment, which was unanimously adopted by the Senate, to every piece of legislation the Senate considers, to be sure the President has the authority he needs not to release these photos and any others that would jeopardize the safety and security of our troops.

“The release of the photos will serve as propaganda and recruiting tool for terrorists who seek to attack American citizens at home and abroad. We should strive to have as open a government as possible, but the behavior depicted in the photos has been prohibited and is being investigated. The photos do not depict anything that is not already known. Transparency, and in this case needless transparency, should not be paid for with the lives of American citizens, let alone the lives of our men and women in uniform fighting on our behalf in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

“Let it clearly be understood that without this legislation the photos in question are likely to be released. Such a release would be tantamount to a death sentence to some who are serving our nation in the most dangerous and difficult spots like Iraq and Afghanistan. It is this certain knowledge of these consequences of having the photos released that will cause us to vote against the supplemental and continue our push to turn our important amendment into law.”

-30-

[emphasis added]

Rough translation – Joe will hold his breath until he turns blue red if he doesn’t get his way. Filibuster! All in response to a court ruling:

Leading Rights Groups Call On Obama To Release Prisoner Abuse Photos (6/1/2009)

ACLU Calls On Court To Adhere To Mandate Requiring Release Of Abuse Photos

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE…

“…The disclosure of these photographs serves as a further reminder that abuse of prisoners in U.S.-administered detention centers was systemic,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “Some of the abuse occurred because senior civilian and military officials created a culture of impunity in which abuse was tolerated, and some of the abuse was expressly authorized. It’s imperative that senior officials who condoned or authorized abuse now be held accountable for their actions.”

Also today, the ACLU asked a federal appeals court to uphold its earlier ruling that the government must release the photos. On May 28, the government filed a motion asking the court to recall its mandate ordering their release, and today the ACLU filed its opposition to that motion.

“The public has an undeniable right to see these photos. As disturbing as they may be, it is critical that the American people know the full truth about the abuse that occurred in their name. The government’s decision to suppress the photos is fundamentally inconsistent with President Obama’s own promise of transparency and accountability,” said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. “The government has failed to show any good cause for the court to recall its mandate that the photos be released, and we are confident the court will uphold its original order.”

In September 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the government to turn over the photos in response to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The Obama administration originally indicated that it would not appeal that decision and would release the photos, but abruptly reversed its commitment to do so shortly before the agreed-upon deadline…

The letter from the American Civil Liberties Union (and other groups) to President Obama:

June 1, 2009

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

We write to express our profound disappointment with your decision on May 13 to block the release of photographs depicting abuse of detainees by U.S. personnel overseas. We urge you to reconsider that misguided decision and to renew your commitment to our nation’s most fundamental principles.

On your first full day in office, you eloquently proclaimed your administration’s commitment to the principle of open government. You said: “A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.” That is exactly right. The hallmark of an open society is that we do not conceal information that reflects poorly on us – we expose it to the light of day, so that wrongdoers can be held accountable and future abuses prevented.

These photographs will no doubt be disturbing, as they should be. And we understand your concern about reaction to them overseas. But suppressing information to prevent public anger is inconsistent with democratic principles. The Pentagon should release the photos while reaffirming to the world that the U.S. repudiates such barbaric behavior and is committed to dismantling the culture that allowed it to occur. In the end, full disclosure of the crimes committed by our government will make us all safer.

The last eight years have demonstrated all too painfully that excessive secrecy creates a fertile environment for grave abuses. Those abuses have tarnished our nation’s reputation and damaged its security. We will restore our standing as a leader on human rights not by hiding images of our failures, but by demonstrating that those failures will not go unpunished.

As you yourself have stated, “the Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.” Suppressing photographs of abuse places your administration on the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of history. We hope you will reconsider your decision.

Sincerely,

Alliance for Justice

American Civil Liberties Union

Amnesty International

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Center for Constitutional Rights

Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, NYU School of Law

Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

CREDO Mobile

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Feminists for Free Expression

Government Accountability Project

Human Rights Watch

International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)

Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action (JALSA)

Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School

National Security Archive

OMB Watch

OpenTheGovernment.org

PEN American Center

Physicians for Human Rights

Progressive Librarians Guild (PLG)

Reporters Without Borders

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

Veterans for Common Sense

Veterans For Peace

cc: Gregory Craig, White House Counsel
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense

Eric Holder, Attorney General