Israel Under Netanyahu: Isolated and Unwilling to Listen.

The Israelis have made it clear that they have no intention of assisting the United Nations Human Rights Council's investigation into the deaths of nine peace protesters killed after the IDF boarded a peace flotilla headed for Gaza, and that they regard the UN as "obsessive".

Israel does not intend to cooperate with the United Nations Human Rights Council's investigation into Israel's interception of a Gaza-bound flotilla at the end of May. The raid resulted in nine deaths.

According to a senior Israeli official, the sense at the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry and the Prime Minister's Office is that cooperating with the investigative committee would only confer legitimacy upon the UNHRC, which has consistently acted against Israel.

"This is an unnecessary committee," the official said, "which is the product of an obsession with Israel."

When nine people are killed on a peaceful protest people tend to become "obsessive" about finding out what happened. It's known as a quest for justice and it's a pretty common reaction when injustice is perceived.

But then, Israel under Natanyahu is becoming an ever harder place to understand. The laws which this Knesset are proposing are deeply troubling.

The blatant flouting of basic laws and civil rights is a common theme running through every recent bill: the loyalty bill sponsored by Yisrael Beiteinu's David Rotem, intended to deny citizenship to those who are not "loyal to the state;" the bill to deny the Islamic Movement's legal status, sponsored by Likud's Ofir Akunis; legislation seeking to deny support to "unpatriotic" filmmakers, sponsored by Michael Ben Ari (National Union ) and Ronit Tirosh (Kadima ); the conversion bill, the Nakba bill and many others like them mock the principles of equality and freedom in Israel's Declaration of Independence.

No other Knesset has submitted so many bills under the guise of "preserving state security" that show open preference to Jews over Arabs in all walks of life.

It seems almost inevitable that, in a country run by Netanyahu and Lieberman, where the Arab is treated like a second class citizen, that a case like this would emerge.

Saber Kushour is under house arrest on appeal of his eighteen month sentence for having sex with an Israeli woman without revealing that he was an Arab. No-one is suggesting that he used force. The woman freely admits that she had sex with him willingly. But, she is arguing that she would not have had sex with him had she known that he was an Arab and that this is, therefore, rape.

"I am paying the price for a mistake that she made," Kushour, 30, told the Observer. "I was shocked at the sentence – it shows a very vivid and clear racism." The message from the judge, he says, was that "because you are an Arab and you didn't make that clear, we are going to punish you".

In his verdict, Judge Zvi Segal conceded that it was not "a classical rape by force". He added: "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated. The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls."

[...]

Kushour's conviction has transfixed Israel. Some see echoes of a primeval – and racist – instinct to protect "our" women against outside marauders. Others are outraged at what they see as a blatant injustice, pointing to a backdrop of widespread, systematic and – some say – growing discrimination against Arabs who make up 20% of Israel's population.

"This is a most amazing decision by the court," says Tamar Hermann of the Israel Democracy Institute. "Deception is one thing – but to be convicted of rape?" It has, she says, "struck a sensitive chord in the Israeli mainstream of Arabs pretending to be Jews."

The issue of identity is paramount in a land where both communities regard each other with suspicion and hostility.

Yuval Yonay, a sociology professor at Haifa University, in one of Israel's few mixed cities, says Kushour's behaviour "might be improper but it is not rape".

He says that in 16 years of teaching at a university where 20-25% of the student population is Arab, he has "never even heard of a mixed relationship". Discrimination against Arabs is, he says, evident at all levels.

The 18th Knesset is a deeply troubling one, moving further and further to the right. It is dismissive of the opinion of the rest of the world, it is passing laws which are clearly racist, and it is doing so against the will of the majority of Israelis.

And yet Netanyahu remains strangely popular. Why?

An article in Ha'aretz argues that, "when under threat, particularly mortal threat, humans tend to react psychologically by entrenching their worldviews."

Part of the explanation is quite concrete: Two realistic threats have indeed emerged in the last years. The first is the possibility that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, a threat that most Israelis see as catastrophic. The second is from groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which have moved from suicide terrorism to rocket attacks on Israel. Israel, for the first time since 1973, is faced with security threats to which it has no clear-cut answer. As a result Israel launched massive attacks in Lebanon in 2006 and against Gaza in 2008/9 under the assumption that the price of rocket attacks must be destruction on a substantial scale. This has pushed Israel into unprecedented international isolation.

Israel’s electorate reacted to this sequence of events exactly as predicted by existential psychology: during operation Cast Lead, the Israeli public was unwilling to tolerate any criticism of the massive destruction in Gaza, and in the 2009 elections it moved strongly to the right and effectively erased the Israeli left.

The result is a vicious circle in which Israel feels that its existential fears are not taken seriously. Israel’s electorate moves towards leaders who address but also keep reinforcing its fears. International opinion becomes ever more negative, which in turn reinforces Israel’s isolation which in turn raises existential fears.

Of course, Netanyahu is playing up these fears, talking of a world similar to 1938 and casting all who oppose him as Chamberlains. But he is leading Israel to a fearful place.

Israel, under Netanyahu, is becoming more and more isolated. And, as she does so, she is slipping further and further to the right.

This suits Netanyahu, but it is not in Israel's long term interests. Israel used to pride itself as beacon of democracy in the Middle East, but it is now a place where an Arab can be convicted of rape simply for being an Arab.

One day Israel will look back on it's 18th Knesset with a deep sense of shame.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Netanyahu, Lieberman

Israel set to force all citizens to swear oath to Jewish state.

Israel is set to pass a new law which would require new citizens to swear an oath of allegiance to a "Jewish and democratic" state.

By ensuring the mention of Israel as "a Jewish" state, this is an oath which Arab Israelis would be loathe to take.

Israeli Arabs, who comprise 20 percent of the population and live in some of the country's most under-privileged communities, have resisted such a loyalty oath on the grounds that only a state defined by all its different ethnic groups would make them feel equal.

Adalah, a prominent Israeli Arab advocacy group, said the new policy "requires all non-Jews to identify with Zionism and imposes a political ideology and loyalty to the principles of Judaism and Zionism".

The wording of the oath, which would apply to new applicants for citizenship, was slammed by Arab advocacy groups, who accused Israel of "racist" policies that attempt to link citizenship to ideology.

"It's another step in the direction of getting the Arabs out of Israel," said Uri Avnery, a former MP and founder of the Israeli Gush Shalom peace movement. "Parliament has become a lynching mob."

The Israeli parliament under Netanyahu and Lieberman's ultra-nationalist party has, indeed, become akin to a lynching mob. They have recently sought to ban boycotts against Israel.

The third bill, submitted to the Knesset Law Committee for approval on 15 June by 24 Members of Knesset from both the coalition and the opposition, is more comprehensive, and seeks to outlaw any activities promoting any kind of boycott against Israeli organisations, individuals or products, whether in illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) or in Israel proper.

The bill targets Israelis, the Palestinian Authority, Palestinians and foreign governments and individuals, and, if passed into law, will impose fines, economic sanctions and entry bans against initiators or supporters of boycott activities.

This is one of the most extreme governments Israel has ever had and yet the rest of the planet, possibly fearing accusations of anti-Semitism, continue to act as if this is just another Israeli government, whilst they pass laws which are truly shocking.

"There's a steady deterioration of Israeli democracy and a steady rise of right-wing ideologies in the Knesset," said Avnery. "Parliament is turning into a danger for Israeli democracy."

This was the inevitable result of Olmert's decision to allow Lieberman into the Israeli cabinet.

Raleb Majadele, one of nine Labor MKs opposed to the inclusion of the right-wing Yisrael Beteinu party in the government, said at the time that this would prove to be a "black day for the Knesset of Israel, a black day for democracy." Mariappan Jawaharlal once stated that Lieberman was "a ticking time bomb in the heart of Israel."

When one hears of Israel seriously proposing these new laws, one can't help but think that they both had a point.

The status quo in Israeli society is not represented by the extreme right-ring coalition government cobbled together by Netanyahu, but the longer such policies are allowed to be expressed without any serious dissent in the country the more that Israeli society will begin to accept them as the norm and the march even further to the political right will continue.

These are dangerous waters.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Arab Israelis, Netanyahu, Lieberman

US to press Binyamin Netanyahu to extend freeze on settlements.

Barack Obama is to push Netanyahu to extend his 10 month ban on settlement building in the West Bank in the hopes that this will make peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians more likely.

Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, will come under intense pressure on Tuesday to extend his 10-month freeze on the building of settlements in the West Bank when he meets President Barack Obama in Washington – amid warnings from the Israeli right that they will vigorously oppose such a move.

Despite the moratorium, building in settlements has continued in the past seven months thanks to loopholes and violations. Preparations are under way for a construction boom this autumn.

Obama is expected to press hard for a continuation of the ban in the knowledge that large-scale settlement expansion would imperil the fragile "proximity" talks between Israel and the Palestinians. White House aides last week made it clear that the president wants to "capitalise on the momentum" provided by the freeze.

Obama's task of finding a way to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians has been made infinitely harder by the very fact that Netanyahu is currently leading Israel. Netanyahu, for all his talk of peace, is simply not interested in making the kind of deals needed for peace to be even possible. He thinks that Judea and Samaria belong to Israel, and every move he makes is tempered by that belief.

And that belief is evident in the public statements of everyone that he has chosen to surround himself with.

Israel's combative foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman – a settler himself – has publicly urged Netanyahu to resist pressure to extend the freeze, saying concessions to Palestinians have not brought results. September would pose a "big test" for Israel, he said.

At least two other members of Netanyahu's inner cabinet of seven have made their position clear. "We will renew building when the moratorium ends," said Moshe Ya'alon. "There is no chance that Netanyahu will extend the freeze," said Benny Begin.

Last week, leaders of the settlers warned that they would launch an "unprecedented struggle" if they were not permitted to resume building.

"If Netanyahu returns from the US with another commitment to a freeze, he will encounter an unprecedented response of settlers who will hound him no matter where he goes," they said in a statement.

Settlers' organisations have taken advertisements in the Israeli press, accusing the prime minister of "trampling on" the settlements. And Settlement Watch, an Israeli organisation, said that preparations are being made for a massive construction boom this autumn on the assumption the moratorium will be lifted.

"There are approved plans for between 40,000 and 50,000 housing units waiting," said Hagit Ofran. "The only thing they need is for the mayor [of each settlement] to sign the permit. On 26 September, those mayors will have a big pile of permits on their desks."

The truth is that people like Lieberman and Netanyahu do not want results, certainly not the kind of results - in terms of peace - that the rest of us are seeking.

They want land, nothing else.

Obama needs to get tough with these guys. Everything which they are doing is illegal. There is not a country on Earth which recognises these settlements.

Obama should emphasise this as he insists that all building must stop.

The argument that settlement freezes do not result in peace talks is a red herring. The settlements are illegal. Obama should not fall into the trap of arguing whether or not the freeze resulted in talks.

He should stick to pointing out what is legal and what is not.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Netanyahu, Obama, Lieberman

A Pathetic Joe Lieberman whines to John Brennan about not calling terrorists "Islamic Extremists".

Lieberman is upset because the Obama regime have dropped the phrase "Islamic extremism" from a national security document.

Apparently, this failure to identify the faith of one's enemy sets a dangerous precedent.

However, I don't remember, during a time when the IRA were setting off bombs all over Britain, anyone ever referring to "Catholic terrorists", so what exactly is Lieberman's point?

Why is it so important to him that the religion of the people involved be identified? What difference does that make?

Tags: Extremism, Fox News Sunday, Joe Lieberman, John Brennan, lieberman, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh

Lieberman: Obama Won't Get Nukes Treaty Without Major Changes.

There really is nothing this snake could ever do which would surprise me, so low is the place he inhabits in my expectations.

Lieberman has let us know that he is now planning to vote against Obama's nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," the Connecticut Independent suggested that he himself would oppose ratification of the START II Treaty that Obama signed in Prague this past week, in part because, he reasoned, the language left America vulnerable to a nuclear Iran.

"I don't believe that there will be 67 votes to ratify the treaty unless the administration does two things," Lieberman said. "First: commit to modernize our nuclear stockpile, so as we have less nuclear weapons we know that they are capable if, God forbid, we need them. And secondly, to make absolutely clear that the statements by Russian president [Dmitry] Medvedev at the signing in program, that seemed to suggest that if we continue to build ballistic missile defense in Europe they may pull out of this treaty, is just not acceptable to us. We need that defense to protect our allies and ourselves from Iran."

So, he is going to demand that the US continue it's ridiculous star wars programme, the programme which many doubt will ever actually work.

And let's not forget, the deal still leaves both the US and Russia with 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons deployed and ready to fire, and to 700 deployed delivery systems (missiles and heavy bombers). How many times does Joe want to blow the planet up that he can argue that the US is somehow insufficiently covered on the nuclear bomb front?

The people of Connecticut have got to kick this creep out on his ass at the next election.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Lieberman, nuclear proliferation

Put America Second.

I've spoken before about how Lieberman and McCain have decided that, in any conflict of interests between the US and Israel, they will come down firmly on the side of Israel.

The Washington Post appear to have come up with why Lieberman and McCain are correct to do so.

A larger question concerns Mr. Obama's quickness to bludgeon the Israeli government. He is not the first president to do so; in fact, he is not even the first to be hard on Mr. Netanyahu. But tough tactics don't always work: Last year Israelis rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu, while Mr. Obama's poll ratings in Israel plunged to the single digits.

Apparently the US president must always keep an eye on the opinion polls of Israel so that he can better judge how he is doing his job.

I thought Obama's problem, according to McCain and Lieberman during the last election campaign, was that he didn't put America first.

“In my opinion, the choice could not be more clear: between one candidate, John McCain, who’s had experience, been tested in war and tried in peace, another candidate who has not,’’ Mr. Lieberman said. “Between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not.

Apparently, the rules have changed again, and it is no longer one's patriotic duty to put your own country first. Now Lieberman and McCain have decided that it's patriotic to put America second.

How do these buggers manage to fight elections running on a bandwagon of patriotism?

UPDATE:

The Jewish Institute of Foreign Affairs has this to say in a scathing attack on Obama.

Friends of Israel bewailed the timing - though not the substance - of the announcement.

That's like saying, "Sorry I punched you on Monday. I promise never to punch you on a Monday again!"

UPDATE II:

McCain and Lieberman actually went to Israel earlier this year to publicly state that they will do whatever they can to reverse Obama's foreign policy.

The man who lost the last election reacts by directly undercutting the victor's foreign policy goals, and does so abroad in the very country Obama is trying to push toward change.

Lieberman, for his part, is effectively telling the Israelis that Obama does not control US foreign policy with respect to Israel, and that he will be prevented by Congress from exerting any pressure. He says this with a certainty, as if the autonomy of the president is simply moot. And remember that Lieberman and McCain often invoke the necessity for sanctions against foreign countries the US is trying to nudge or persuade in one way or another. Here's Lieberman's quote (and the video of his backing Netanyahu against Obama is here):

Any attempt to pressure Israel, to force Israel to the negotiating table, by denying Israel support will not pass the Congress of the United States. In fact, Congress will act to stop any attempt to do that.

Message to a foreign government: if the US president tries to pressure you in any way, we will stop him and back you.

Unbelievable.

Hat tip to Sullivan.

Tags: Lieberman, McCain, Israel, Palestine, Obama, Netanyahu

Lieberman and Kristol Blame Obama.

Normally, the likes of Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol pride themselves on being the US troops greatest defenders.

So one would have thought that when both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus say that a country's actions were putting the lives of American troops in danger, that Lieberman and Kristol would be the first to condemn that country.

Well, that's not actually how this is playing out. Why? Because the country Mullen and Petraeus named was Israel.

A briefing given to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen has said that that "Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region" and that "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." The briefing was said to have "stunned Mullen."

This briefing - and Petraeus's subsequent request to have the West Bank and Gaza put under his command - is said to have "hit the White House like a bombshell."

Indeed, the danger to American troops was further emphasised by no less a figure than the American Vice President:

"This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

What was Lieberman's reaction?

Making reference to Clinton’s remarks, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who enjoys public grandstanding on other issues, urged the White House to be quiet on this one:

“It was a dust-up, a misunderstanding. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu has apologized, and the timing was unfortunate. But the second round of criticism is unproductive. I make one appeal — sometimes silence really is golden.”

And then there's this from Bill Kristol:

On Fox News Sunday yesterday, the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol stated bluntly that the dust-up was all Obama’s fault. “This is a fight that the White House has picked,” he said. “I do not know, honestly, why the president chose to pick a big public fight just when it was all dying down with Israel.”

Petraeus couldn't have made his message clearer:

David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers.

There's certainly nothing in the statement of either Lieberman or Kristol to indicate that they take this anywhere near as seriously as Petraeus does. And, considering that Petraeus is talking about the lives of American soldiers, that's highly unusual for both of them.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Lieberman, Kristol, Israel, Palestine, Obama, Biden

Lieberman: I could run as "a good old-fashioned New England moderate Republican."

There are few American politicians who I loathe more than this guy. Here, he discusses the possibility of running 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.

He used to claim that the Iraq war was the only area where he disagreed with the Democrats, but that was before he threatened to veto the healthcare bill if it included a public option and actually campaigned during the last election for the Republican candidate John McCain.

And he doesn't think that his Democratic bridges have been burned? He actually campaigned during the last election for the other side, just what does this ass hat think one has to do in order to burn a bridge?

It should be surprising to no-one that a man who threatened to veto the healthcare bill if it contained a public option now finds himself sinking like a stone in the polls:

Want to know how far Joe Lieberman has fallen in the wake of the health care vote last month? Barack Obama's approval rating with Connecticut Republicans is higher than Lieberman's with the state's Democrats.

81% of Democrats now disapprove of Lieberman's job performance with only 14% approving, and he's not real popular with Republicans who disapprove of him by a 48/39 margin or with independents who do so by a 61/32 spread either. It all adds up to a 25% approval rating with 67% of his constituents giving him bad marks.

Lieberman managed to antagonize both sides with his actions during the health care debate. Among voters who support the health care bill 87% disapprove of how Lieberman handled it with only 10% supporting it. But by voting for the final product after getting it watered down he also managed to earn the unhappiness of constituents opposed to the bill, 52% of whom say they disapprove of what Lieberman did to 33% in support.

Overall just 19% of voters in the state say they like what Lieberman did on the issue with 68% opposed.

And yet he has the nerve to sit there and debate which party will be lucky enough to have him run on their ticket?

The man is electoral poison, who the Hell would want him anyway?

Tags: Lieberman, Republicans, Democrats, Independent

Lieberman: No facility more humane than Gitmo.

There's so much to nitpick every time Joe Lieberman opens his mouth.

Apparently it would be "a very serious mistake" to try Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in a Federal court, despite the success the Bush administration had when convicting Richard Reid for a very similar offence.

Joe would prefer it if Abdulmutallab was treated as a prisoner of war and held in a military brig. And what better military brig than Guananamo Bay, which Joe appears to think has an unfair reputation.

"You could not find a better, more humane facility for a detention center in the world," Lieberman told ABC's Terry Moran Sunday.

I've said it a thousand times, but why is this right wing hawk allowed to caucus with the Democrats, especially as he won't vote with them on anything which really matters to them?

Tags: abc, c3, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, Guantanamo detainees, imprisonment, Joe Lieberman, Terry Moran, Torture

Official defends Gitmo plan.

Lieberman, McCain and Lindsay Graham are never slow to exploit an attempted terrorist attack to imply that Obama and the Democrats are weak on national security, which is why they are now calling for a halt of the transfer of any prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to Yemen, in the light of the failed Christmas Day terrorist plot.

The White House are pushing back:

A senior Obama administration official pushed back against critics of the White House’s plans to transfer some detainees at Guantanamo Bay to Yemen as it moves toward closing the facility, saying the process for transfers are “consistent with our national security interests.”

“I am aware of a lot of people pointing back at the way the transfers were handled under the Bush administration that apparently they have some concerns about that,” said the official, who had not seen the senators’ letter. “I didn’t hear many of those concerns at the time, but there were obviously hundreds and hundreds of detainees that were transferred under the old regime.”

The official explained that the administration’s policy requires that Congress be notified of any transfers, that they are “consistent with our national security interest,” and that each case is reviewed “with a fine-toothed comb.”

“And we believe that each of those that we have done so far enhances our national security,” the official said. “I think that some of us were struck by the fact when Al Qaeda on the Arabian peninsula itself was formed,” the official added, “one of the recruiting and motivational tools that it used in its initial announcement to generate sympathy for its cause for recruits was the facility at Guantanamo Bay.”

Anyone released from Guantanamo Bay who ended up working for al Qaeda, was released under the Bush administration, so why isn't there more questioning of why the Bush administration didn't properly vet the people they were letting go?

If McCain, Graham and Lieberman were genuinely concerned with national security - as opposed to making cheap opportunistic points - then they should be calling for a thorough examination of why the Bush regime released certain people who are now working against the US.

And, if they were serious about tackling terrorism, then they would also have to consider the value of Guantanamo Bay to al Qaeda as a recruiting tool.

Instead, they seek to make Obama responsible for the mistakes of the previous regime which they totally supported.

There's a cheapness to these Republican tactics which I find simply shameful. But it's sadly all too predictable. This is simply what these buggers do.

UPDATE:

I've commented before on the blatant double standard which is employed whenever a Democrat is in the White House, but this takes some beating:

President Obama wants us all to know he’s taking seriously the attempted terrorist attack of Christmas Day and that his administration is doing all it can to ensure our safety. But his words would be a lot more convincing if not delivered during time snatched between rounds of golf, swimming and sunbathing. . . .

Returning to Washington would have sent the world a powerful message of a president willing to drop everything and roll up his sleeves -- someone who really means business.

As I've pointed out before Bush didn't even bother to comment on Richard Reid's attempt to blow up an airplane for SIX DAYS, far less beat a path back to Washington.

So why is this behaviour utterly unacceptable once a Democrat is in the White House?

Why would Obama's message be "a lot more convincing if not delivered during time snatched between rounds of golf, swimming and sunbathing" and yet this behaviour was perfectly acceptable when Bush was president?



UPDATE II:



This is how ludicrous Republicans are becoming in an attempt to attack Obama. It is now suspicious for a President to spend time in his home state.

MADDEN: President Obama right now has suffered very greatly in the last few months because of the fight over health care, and he has very little political capital right now. So Republicans feel it is in vogue to criticize this president.

And then lastly, you have to also remember the fact that the president being on vacation in Hawaii, it’s much different than being in Texas. Hawaii to many Americans seems like a foreign place. And I think those images, the optics, hurt President Obama very badly.

You couldn't make that up. It's beyond pathetic.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Lieberman, McCain, Graham, Yemen, Guantanamo bay

US Senate passes Obama's landmark healthcare bill.

I know that there are many on the left who have attacked Obama and let their deep frustration be known because the new healthcare bill does not include a public option, but I don't agree with Glenn Greenwald that this is because Obama never wanted such a thing. I think this is much more to do with the fact that Blue Dog Democrats aren't really Democrats in any meaningful sense of that term, and that the bill Obama has come up with it simply the best one that he could get these buggers to agree to.

The early-morning vote in the first Christmas Eve session for decades came after months of intense negotiations by the president's allies in the Senate, who were forced to wrangle for every Democratic vote in the chamber to overcome Republican opposition.

Republicans have long opposed any reform of American healthcare, lying to the American public by claiming that their healthcare is the best in the world, so Obama was never going to get any support from that side of the aisle; which, of course, gave an incredible amount of power to the Joe Lieberman's of this world who were able to strip all the best bits out of the bill in order to please their corporate sponsors.

Nevertheless, it is an achievement for Obama, one which - although short of what many progressives would like to see - still gives healthcare protection to millions who presently do not have it.

Negotiators will have to iron out differences between the two bills on coverage for abortion. Among other distinctions, the Senate-passed bill does not establish a government-run health insurance programme, a provision sought by Obama and congressional liberals.

The Senate bill passed on a 60-39 party line vote.

The overhaul is expected to extend health insurance to 30 million Americans who currently lack it. For the first time, Americans will be required to obtain health insurance, and insurers will be forbidden from denying coverage based on patients' pre-existing conditions.

Those who cannot get insurance through their employers will have access to a government-regulated health insurance exchange and may receive subsidies. A government-run insurance programme for the poor will be vastly expanded.

America won't begin to see the kind of bills many progressives want to see until the Democratic party starts challenging the Blue Dog Democrats and replacing them with people who believe in what the Democratic Party is supposed to believe in.

The bill has angered the president's allies on the left, who have criticised the exclusion of a public health insurance programme and restrictions on abortion coverage, both modifications necessary to win over conservative Democrats.

Senator Joe Lieberman, of Connecticut, an independent who is nominally allied with the Democrats, forced the removal of a public insurance programme, angering many Democrats, while Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, agreed to support the bill only after it was amended on insurance coverage for abortion.

The Democrats should start by putting a strong candidate up against Lieberman and making sure his or her campaign is financed to the hilt.

Nothing would give me greater joy than to see that little toad run out of office.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Universal healthcare, Obama, Lieberman, Senate

Barack Obama healthcare plan passes through US Senate.

It is undeniably half a loaf, and I wanted to see the whole loaf delivered, but I am going to proceed on the basis that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

Like Olbermann, I had wanted to see the public option in this bill, but the American system - with scumbags like Lieberman holding so much sway (Thanks to the universal opposition of the Republicans to anything which improves matters for ordinary Americans) - appears to me to simply not have the numbers to make that possible at the moment, so I suppose the Democrats have to do what the Republicans do so often; take what you can get and come back to fight another day.

President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare legislation passed its sternest Senate test early today, overcoming Republican delaying tactics on a 60-40 vote that all but assures its passage later this week.

"Let's make history," Democratic senator Tom Harkin said shortly before the bill's supporters showed their command of the senate floor in an extraordinary holiday season showdown.

The bill would extend coverage to more than 30 million Americans who now lack it, while outlawing insurance company practices such as the denial of benefits based on pre-existing medical conditions.

The atmosphere was partisan, but the outcome preordained as senators cast their votes from their desks, a practice reserved for issues of particular importance.

White House officials who have worked intensely on the issue watched from the visitor's gallery despite the hour. So, too, Vicki Kennedy, the widow of Democratic senator Ted Kennedy, who championed healthcare across a senate career that spanned more than 40 years.

The US is the only wealthy industrialised nation that does not have universal coverage.

If I was Obama I would now concentrate on finding a challenger to oppose Joe Lieberman, and I would throw every resource I had at removing that snake from office.

I note that even Howard Dean is now walking back from previous statements to now back what is left of the Democratic bill and try to improve it further down the line:

Well, let’s start with the positive things. Over the last week, there were things that were improved. There were some cost containment mechanisms that were gutted. They got restored. I would certainly not vote for this bill if this were the final product, but there are, the House bill is quite a good bill. This bill has improved over the last couple of weeks, I would let this thing go to conference committee and let’s see if we can fix it some more…so there are a lot of things that need to be fixed, but if they are fixed you may actually get the foundation of a bill, coming out of the House. If most of the House provisions survive, then we can have a bill that we could work with….I hope this isn’t the compromise that’s been achieved. I think we have yet to see the compromise that we could achieve.

Let's not pretend that this is not a grave disappointment, but let's also not pretend that this bill is not better than nothing.

I find it scandalous that the US is the only wealthy industrialised nation which does not have universal healthcare, but, until the Democratic party removes snakes like Lieberman from the body of the Kirk, then they will simply never have the votes to get such a thing passed.

The Blue Dog Democrats are a serious problem for that party.

Click here for full article.

Tags: universal healthcare, Obama, Lieberman

Special Comment: Not Health, Not Care, Not Reform.

Finally, as promised, a Special Comment on the latest version of H-R 35-90, the Senate Health Care Reform bill.

To again quote Churchill after Munich, as I did six nights ago on this program:

"I will begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing: that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, without a war."

Last night on this program Howard Dean said that with the appeasement of Mr. Lieberman of Connecticut by the abandonment of the Medicare Buy-in, he could no longer support H-R 35-90.

Dr. Dean's argument is informed, cogent, heart breaking, and unanswerable.

It is heart breaking that Lieberman might very well succeed here. As Olbermann says, "He has become a senatorial prostitute".

Let Lieberman and Ben Nelson and Baucus and the Republicans vote their lack-of-conscience and preclude 60 "ayes." Let them commit political suicide instead of you.

Let Mr. Lieberman kill the bill -- then turn to his Republican friends only to find out they hate him more than the Democrats do. Let him stagger off the public stage, to go work … for the insurance industry.

As if he is not doing that now.

Amen.

Tags: cartel, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Daily KOS, health care bill, health care mandate, middle class, rescission, Special Comment, urgency

Lieberman: Strip out major reform and I'll vote for health bill.

Lieberman will vote for healthcare as long as the bill is stripped of anything which might constitute real change.

"You have to take out the Medicare buy-in. You have to forget about the public option. You probably have to take out the class act which was a whole new entitlement program that will in future years put us further into the deficit," Lieberman told CBS' Bob Schieffer Sunday.

"I want to tell you, we could pass a health care reform bill this week with more than 60 votes and it would be bipartisan if we just took a few things out of the bill as it is today," said Lieberman.

If they just stop it having any value, then Joe could vote for it. I've said it before but Obama needs to kick this guy into touch. Remove his chairmanships and force him to caucus with the Republicans who he campaigned for during the last election.

Tags: Lieberman, healthcare, public option

‘It’s All About Joe’

Those pesky Democrats are harassing poor Lieberman again, and all because he puts his own views before those who elected him.

When will the electorate finally realise that, once they have elected him, Joe has no more need for their input until the next election?

More here.

Tags: Lieberman, universal healthcare, public option

Senate votes to begin full debate on US healthcare reforms.

With the Senate voting for a full debate on Obama's healthcare proposals, snakes like Joe Lieberman can prepare to enjoy their moment in the sun.

However, there were indications of more problems ahead for the US president as several senators crucial to winning the vote said they would not support the legislation as it is currently written.

They said this was because of the inclusion of a government-run insurance option, albeit one falling far short of that proposed by Obama after public protests and heavy lobbying by the health insurance industry.

The Senate voted along party lines, with all 58 Democrats and two independents producing exactly the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster.

However, we have now reached the exact point at which Lieberman, now joined by two others, has all along threatened to use the filibuster.

If he does this the Democrats really do need to come down on him as hard as they can. Remove his chairmanships and kick him out of the caucus.

Obama has got the US nearer than it has ever been to establishing some form of universal healthcare. It would be a tragedy if this was to fail at this point, especially if it was filibustered with the help of people supposedly on the Democratic side of the debate.

The bill drawn up by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is designed to ensure 94% of Americans are covered by health insurance by – among other things – offering government-run health insurance, alongside private companies, that individual states could opt out of if they objected.

Reid said it was morally right that reform of the US healthcare system, in a country in which half of all bankruptcies are the result of medical bills and half of those are among people who have private health insurance, would now be debated by the full Senate.

"Imagine if, instead of debating whether to abolish slavery, instead of debating whether giving women and minorities a right to vote, those who disagreed were muted, discussion was killed," he added.

Opinion polls have shown that a clear majority of Americans support the inclusion of publicly run health insurance.

Lieberman has already made it perfectly clear that public opinion on this subject is of little interest to him.

Indeed, he pretended that this subject hadn't even been part of Obama's campaign.

"This is a kindof 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.

(That line read, "Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program, available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees," and went on from there.)

I said, "And at the time Senator Clinton, and John Edwards also had..."

"Edwards probably had it more than anybody else," Lieberman said. "But Clinton, Obama, McCain--I don't see it. Anyway, I'm opposed to it."

The American public have made their views on this perfectly plain. Every opinion poll says that a large majority want a public option in healthcare.

Snakes like Lieberman, a man who once ran on the Democratic ticket, now appears to be against decades of Democratic policy. The Democrats have always favoured universal healthcare, so it's very odd that former Democrats like Lieberman now find the entire notion so repugnant.

First, he favoured the Iraq war, now he opposes a public option in healthcare; was he ever really a Democrat?

Click here for full article.

Tags: Lieberman, universal healthcare, Obama

Lieberman Promises To Filibuster House Health Bill.

So, one of the Iraq war's greatest supporters threatens to filibuster the healthcare bill because he is concerned about the deficit.

The deficit never bothered this warmonger when it was being run up to fight an illegal and unnecessary war, but it rankles him if it's been run up to give people healthcare.

Tags: Lieberman, universal healthcare

Who Said This?

"[People] are fed up -- frustrated and fed up and angry about the way in which our government does not work, about the way in which we come down here and get into a lot of political games and seem to -- partisan tugs of war and forget why we're here, which is to serve the American people. And I think the filibuster has become not only in reality an obstacle to accomplishment here, but it also a symbol of a lot that ails Washington today."

"But I do want to say that the Republicans were not the only perpetrators of filibuster gridlock, there were occasions when Democrats did it as well. And the long and the short of it is that the abuse of the filibuster was bipartisan and so its demise should be bipartisan as well."

"The whole process of individual senators being able to hold up legislation, which in a sense is an extension of the filibuster because the hold has been understood in one way to be a threat to filibuster -- it's just unfair."

He's even more of a hypocritical sleazebag than previously thought.

Tags: Universal healthcare, Lieberman

Joe, the No.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rachel takes on the sleazeball that is Joe Lieberman. Quite how this man could ever have been considered a Democrat is simply lost on me.

He's now threatening to filibuster any healthcare reform which includes a public option. And he's doing this after campaigning for John McCain against Barack Obama in the recent election. And yet he is still allowed to caucus with the Democrats? Astonishing.

They should strip him of every chairmanship he posseses and throw him out on his ear. What is the point of pretending that he is inside the tent if he can't back something as essential to progressives as universal healthcare?

As Glenn Greenwald points out in this clip, should Lieberman go ahead with this he will be going against the overwhelming majority of voters in his own state.

I have loathed this man ever since he betrayed Obama to side with McCain.

When he faced a challenge from Ned Lamont, his campaign staff practically "begged" Obama to appear with him, which is something which Obama did, with no obvious advantage to himself.

Top Lieberman officials have admitted that Obama's support was crucial to Lieberman being elected:

"We needed him to strongly validate us as a candidate that liberal Democrats should not desert," the official tells me. "We went to the Obama operation with a very urgent plea for him to come out for us."

It's well known that Obama's 2006 endorsement was important. But it's not widely understood just how urgently the Lieberman people begged for Obama's help at a critical moment in Lieberman's career -- and in that light, just how much of a back-stabbing Lieberman's attacks on Obama now represent.

"It was a favor as huge as we could have gotten -- it was like a drowning man getting thrown a life preserver," the Lieberman official continued. "Just when Ned was trying to establish himself as a credible alternative on the war, Barack Obama came in and said, `Hey, I disagree with him on the war, but you should send him back to the Senate.'"

And now the sleazeball snake is proposing this. There are very few US politicians who I hold in lower regard than this jackass.

UPDATE:



The Young Turks take on this.

Tags: Lieberman, universal healthcare, Obama, Democrats

McCain: Don’t Prosecute Over Interrogations

The Three Amigos have popped up to beg Obama not to prosecute people over interrogations.

Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sent President Obama a letter today in which they expressed strong concern about his decision to leave the door open to the possible prosecution of officials who crafted controversial Bush administration policy on detainee interrogations.

"Pursuing such prosecutions would, we believe, have serious negative effects on the candor with which officials in any administration provide their best advice, and would take our country in a backward-looking direction at a time when our detainee-related challenges demand that we look forward," the letter said.

It went on to say that such prosecutions would have a "seriously chilling effect" on the ability of lawyers to provide legal counsel to the United States.

As John Cole points out, isn't that the very reason we prosecute people in the first place? To have a "chilling effect" on anyone else who might think of behaving in the same way as the person we are prosecuting?

And there is no reason for any lawyers advising the president to feel any "chilling effect" at all as a result of this, unless, like John Yoo, they are deliberately telling the president that certain illegal actions are, in fact, legal.

And it would be a very good thing for future lawyers to have to think carefully before they advise the president on the law. After all, this is the law they are talking about. They should ALWAYS think carefully before they give out such advice.

They certainly can't behave in the way Yoo did and simply make it up as they go along.

And why are they writing to Obama in the first place? It's not his decision.

Hat tip to Balloon Juice.

Tags: McCain, Joe Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, torture, war crimes, prosecution