Joe Lieberman's Nixonian Deception on Iraq

At last night’s debate, Senator Lieberman once again dismissed calls for a change of course in Iraq as “retreat” and “giving up” – yet contradicted himself and claimed he is really for ending the war in Iraq. We saw these kinds of contradictions and machinations thirty five years ago, during the Vietnam War. As an explosive new video shows, Lieberman is parroting – almost word-for-word – the language of Richard Nixon in 1969. Nixon that year delivered one of his most famous speeches on the Vietnam War, pretending to Americans that he was working to end the war. Yet, at exactly the time Nixon was making his “end the war” statements, he continued aggressively pushing the war for three more years – at a cost of 9,000 American lives. Just as Nixon clearly had no intention of ending the war in 1969, Lieberman is engaging in Nixonian deception when he says in 2006 that he wants to end the Iraq War, as he has opposed every single effort to end the war.

Watch or download the video and then forward to your friends. The quotes are below:

WMV download

RICHARD NIXON:

“I want peace as much as you do.” – Nixon, November 3, 1969

JOE LIEBERMAN:

“I have said the sooner we get out of Iraq, the better.” – Lieberman, July 6, 2006

“no one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do and bring our troops home.” - Lieberman, October 18, 2006

RICHARD NIXON:

“Now, many believe that President Johnson's decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong. And many others -- I among them -- have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted. But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?” – Nixon, November 3, 1969

JOE LIEBERMAN:

“I supported the use of force in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power because I believed that he was a grave threat to our country, his people, and the world. And I continue to believe that decision was right. Since then, I have often disagreed with how the war has been run. The one question that really matters right now is how to move forward and provide a better future for the Iraqi people and more security for the American people.” – Lieberman, September 25, 2006

RICHARD NIXON:

“An announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.” – Nixon, November 3, 1969

JOE LIEBERMAN:

“If you tell your enemy when you're going to leave, they'll wait and create disaster. If you want to turn Iraq over to the terrorists, follow the policy you've enunciated.” – Lieberman, July 6, 2006

RICHARD NIXON:

“I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the nation.” – Nixon, November 3, 1969

JOE LIEBERMAN:

“There is a real but unfortunately too often overlooked or concealed bipartisan American consensus in favor of this new war.” – Lieberman, April 26, 2004

Joe Lieberman on Pre-War Intelligence

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee today reported that the Bush Administration’s case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading. To justify the decision to go to war with Iraq, the Administration cherry-picked, manipulated and disregarded information from the intelligence community.

Even as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Joe Lieberman has refused to press the administration for answers on the WMD question, and instead has insisted WMD were in Iraq. Worse, even though he used the WMD rationale as the reason he supported war, he now says that even if WMD were not in Iraq, he still would have supported the war.

As Ned Lamont has previously said, “Joe owes Connecticut voters an explanation of his vote for the war and his rubberstamping of Bush’s failed policies.”

Iraq did not provide any material or operational support to Al Qaeda before the war.

Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al Qaeda, viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, and issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida.

There was no connection to 9/11, and no indication that Saddam Hussein intended to use any terrorist group to strike the U.S.

The State Department was correct when they determined that there was not enough evidence to say that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear program.

The State Department and the Department of Energy were correct that the aluminum tubes were not for a nuclear program.
The Air Force was correct that Iraq’s UAVs were not for delivery of biological weapons.

PRE-WAR – LIEBERMAN WAS KEY LAWMAKER PUSHING WMD HYPE AS REASON TO INVADE IRAQ: In its 6/18/03, Salon.com reported on how Lieberman played a key role in pushing the Iraq WMD storyline. “In October 1998, Lieberman reported on the ‘chilling news from Baghdad,’” Salon reported. “With the inspections program ‘disintegrating,’ Lieberman said, it would only be three months after inspections ended that Saddam would ‘begin building missiles to carry the weapons of mass destruction we know he still has, and he will surely restart or finish his nuclear weapons program.’ Introducing the Iraq War Resolution on Oct. 2, 2002, Lieberman declared that Saddam ‘has continued, without question, to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them on distant targets.’” As the Norwich Bulletin reported, “the weapons of mass destruction Saddam supposedly stockpiled [was] a key factor Bush and Lieberman cited in arguing for an invasion.” [Salon, 6/18/03; Norwich Bulletin, 12/26/05]

2003 – LIEBERMAN ATTACKED THOSE WHO RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT WMD: At a press conference, Lieberman specifically attacked those who raised questions about the failure to find WMD in Iraq. In a discussion about WMD, Lieberman said: “By their words, some in my party are sending out a message that they don’t know a just war when they see it, and, more broadly, they’re not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom.” [Source: Washington Post, 7/29/03]

2004 – LIEBERMAN IGNORED WMD REPORT, SAID IRAQ HAD WMD AND THUS POSED THREAT: On 6/25/04, Lieberman told CNN that “Iraq did pose a threat to us” because “they had weapons of mass destruction.” He said this long after CNN reported that President Bush’s chief weapons inspector, David Kay, told Congress that “his group [of inspectors] found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.” [CNN, 6/25/04; CNN, 1/25/04]

2005 – LIEBERMAN DISTORTED WMD REPORT, CLAIMED IRAQ HAD WMD, THUS JUSTIFYING WAR: Lieberman appeared on Sean Hannity’s national radio show to claim that U.S. government reports supposedly confirmed the existence of WMD in Iraq. “The so-called Duelfer Report, which a lot of people read to say there were no weapons of mass destruction – concluded that Saddam continued to have very low level of chemical and biological programs,” Lieberman said. Lieberman reiterated this claim on Fox News, saying “The fact that we didn’t discover large stocks of weapons of mass destruction doesn’t mean that Saddam Hussein didn’t have them.” Then, without any proof, he claimed “Duelfer found that [Saddam] had a rudimentary biological and chemical weapons program.” However, according to CNN, the Duelfer report conclusively said “Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them.” In fact, the report definitively documented that “Iraq’s WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq’s nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.” [Hannity Radio Show, 12/2/05; CNN, 10/7/04; AFP, 1/12/05]

2006 – LIEBERMAN CITED FOR “DANCING” AROUND WMD QUESTION: The 3/26/06 Connecticut Post reported “In October 2004, Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. arms inspector, issued a report that found Hussein was a diminishing threat at the time of the U.S. invasion and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Lieberman danced around the question of Iraq—- simply saying it is the right thing to do.” [Source: Connecticut Post, 3/26/06]

2006 – LIEBERMAN TELLS RADIO HOST WMD DIDN’T MATTER & THAT HE SUPPORTED WAR ANYWAY: On Glenn Beck’s national radio show on 8/22/06, Lieberman agreed with the host that the WMD rationale that he pushed as a justification for war was merely “a nice side benefit” and that the Iraq War was really a vehicle for other objectives. Beck said, “The weapons of mass destruction was a nice side benefit. We were trying to go and pop the head of the snake in Iran. That’s what we were trying to do. And I don’t think anybody had the courage or could actually come out and say that with world politics the way they are.” Lieberman immediately agreed, saying “You’re right.” [Glenn Beck radio show, 8/22/06]

2006 – LIEBERMAN SAYS HE WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED WAR EVEN IF NO WMD IN IRAQ: In the same Glenn Beck radio interview, Lieberman says he would have advocated for war with Iraq even if the public knew the truth about Iraq not having WMD, and even though he originally cited WMD as his reason for supporting the Iraq War. In a discussion about the false hyping of the Iraq threat, Lieberman reminded Beck that regardless of the failure to find WMD, “I think we did the right thing in going in to overthrow Saddam.” [Glenn Beck radio show, 8/22/06]

Joe Lieberman's (Missed) Iraq Votes

WHY IS LIEBERMAN NOW TRYING TO JUSTIFY MISSED VOTES AND FLIP-FLOPS ON IRAQ?

• Joseph Lieberman has missed at least 16 Iraq votes since 2003.
• He was the only Senator to miss two key Iraq votes in 2003.
• Lieberman began skipping major Senate votes on Iraq right after the war started.
• He has publicly contradicted himself on support for Bush’s Iraq war policy.
• Lieberman now denies he ever supported indefinite troop presence in Iraq
• Despite all of these votes, Lieberman now claims he’s been trying to "end the war."

Whether it is missing critical votes or making contradictory statements, Sen. Joe Lieberman is now doing everything he can to avoid discussing his strong support for President Bush’s policies in Iraq. After a look at Lieberman’s record, the question is simple: Why is Joe Lieberman desperate to distort and hide his own well-known position on Iraq?

LIEBERMAN SKIPPING KEY SENATE VOTES ON IRAQ; HAS MISSED AT LEAST 16 IRAQ VOTES SINCE 2003: On 9/6/06, Lieberman skipped a critical close Senate vote on Iraq. Specifically, the vote was on legislation to require the Pentagon to provide more information to Congress and the public on the potential for civil war in Iraq. The bill Lieberman skipped this critical vote even though the Hartford Courant noted that Lieberman was in Washington that day. In fact, Lieberman attended the vote that immediately preceded this key Iraq vote. That was on a bill to prevent cluster bombing of civilian targets. Lieberman voted against that bill. Lieberman also skipped another close Iraq vote the next day – this time on legislation to stop the Pentagon from trying to artificially influence the Iraqi news media in the wake of embarrassing scandals about U.S. government media tampering that have enflamed anti-American passions in Iraq. In all, Lieberman has skipped at least 16 Iraq votes since the war started in 2003. [Sources: Senate Roll Call Vote #233, 9/6/06; Hartford Courant, 9/7/06; Senate Roll Call Vote #232, 9/6/07; Senate Roll Call Vote #236, 9/7/06]

LIEBERMAN ONLY SENATOR TO MISS TWO KEY IRAQ VOTES IN 2003: Lieberman was the only U.S. Senator to miss a close vote on a resolution to urge the president to better engage America’s international allies to help bear the military and financial cost of the war. He was also the only senator to skip a close vote on a bill that would have created a federal agency overseeing Iraq reconstruction money so as to prevent war profiteering. In both cases, the votes were very close, and the legislation in question was defeated. [Sources: Senate Roll Call Vote #391, 10/17/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #392, 10/17/03]

LIEBERMAN BEGAN SKIPPING MAJOR SENATE VOTES ON IRAQ RIGHT AFTER THE WAR STARTED: Immediately after the Iraq War began in early 2003, Lieberman began skipping critical votes on the war. For example, he skipped a vote on legislation to prohibit the Pentagon from involuntarily deploying to Iraq those National Guardsmen that had been involuntarily deployed for more than six months. He skipped a razor-thin vote on anti-rubber stamping legislation that would have prevented the President from shifting Iraq War funds around without the approval of Congress. He skipped a tight vote on legislation sponsored by Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd that would have provided additional emergency funding for safety equipment such as body armor for troops serving in Iraq. He additionally skipped votes on legislation to require Iraqi oil revenues be used to pay for reconstruction in Iraq; to shift more Iraq reconstruction out of low priorities and into disarming terrorist insurgents; to force the Bush administration to report to Congress on an Iraq reconstruction plan; to establish a bipartisan congressional commission to study how the Bush administration manipulated pre-war intelligence; to demand regular reports on U.S. operations in Iraq; to assert congressional oversight of war funds after news of wasteful no-bid contracts. [Senate Roll Call Vote #398, 10/17/03; Roll Call Vote #397, 10/17/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #396, 10/17/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #380, 10/14/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #376, 10/2/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #287, 7/17/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #284, 7/16/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #283, 7/16/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #281, 7/16/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #278, 7/16/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #277, 7/16/03; Senate Roll Call Vote #124, 4/3/03]

LIEBERMAN PUBLICLY CONTRADICTING HIMSELF ON SUPPORT FOR BUSH’S IRAQ POLICY: The Lieberman campaign now claims Lieberman has been a leading critic of the Bush administration’s War in Iraq. For example, a Liebeman spokeswoman claimed to the New Haven register that Lieberman “has repeatedly and harshly criticized the Bush administration” for the War in Iraq. Yet, as the New Yorker noted in a piece just last year, Lieberman has been “unapologetic about his defense of Bush’s Iraq policy.” He told the magazine that “Bottom line, I think Bush has it right.” [Sources: New Haven Register, 9/9/06; New Yorker, 3/21/05]

DESPITE VOTES, LIEBERMAN NOW CLAIMS HE’S BEEN TRYING TO “END THE WAR”: Immediately after losing the Democratic primary, Lieberman launched a television ad claiming to be running specifically because “I want to help end the war in Iraq.” Yet, Lieberman has voted time and time again to continue the war – with some of these votes coming just weeks before he began claiming he’s been trying to end the war. On 11/15/05, Lieberman was one of only 5 Democrats to vote against legislation "that would have pressured the administration to outline a plan to draw down U.S. forces in Iraq,” according to the Washington Post. On 6/22/06, Lieberman voted against two pieces of legislation pushing Bush to draft an exit strategy from Iraq. According to the Boston Globe, one was a "proposal to withdraw US troops from Iraq within a year" and another was a “nonbinding amendment that would have called on President Bush to begin withdrawing troops by the end of 2006 and to make ‘phased redeployments’ out of Iraq thereafter.” [Sources: Washington Post , 11/16/05; Senate Roll Call Vote #322, 11/15/05; Senate Roll Call Vote #182 and #181, 6/22/06; Boston Globe, 6/23/06]

LIEBERMAN NOW DENIES HE EVER SUPPORTED INDEFINITE TROOP PRESENCE IN IRAQ: As recently as August 20th, Lieberman has appeared on national television claiming "I’ve never been for an indefinite, unconditional deployment of American troops" and insisting that such assertions were a "distortion that my opponent managed to convince too many people" about. However, the facts speak for themselves. In 2003, CNN reported on Lieberman’s very clear support for a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. He told the network: "We may, over the long term, with the consent of the new Iraqi government, establish some permanent bases in Iraq. And wouldn’t that be a dramatic change, where we have an allied government there in Iraq, at the center of the Middle East, where we may have not a permanent police presence, but one or another military base that’s working in cooperation with the government there?” [Sources: CBS Face the Nation, 8/20/06; CNN, 4/20/03]

LIEBERMAN’S FAILURE TO DELIVER REAL HOMELAND SECURITY HITS CONNECTICUT HARD

LIEBERMAN TOUTS INFLUENCE AS CONNECTICUT GETS LEAST AMOUNT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING IN NORTHEAST:

According to the Congressional Research Service, Connecticut is receiving a lower amount of federal homeland security grants per capita than any other state in the Northeast, despite Lieberman serving as the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee. Specifically, in 2005, Connecticut got just $6.86 per capita in funding from federal homeland security grants. By contrast, New York got $15.54 per capita, New Hampshire received $12.85 per capita, Vermont received $23.83 per capita (nearly 4 times CT’s total), Massachusetts received $9.77 per capita, and Rhode Island received $14.55 per capita. In all, Connecticut is 38th lowest in terms of homeland security funding. [Source: Congressional Research Service report, 12/13/04]

LIEBERMAN TOUTS INFLUENCE EVEN AS HOMELAND SECURITY CUTS HIT CONNECTICUT HARD:

Lieberman has touted his seniority on the Senate Homeland Security Committee as something that has helped Connecticut. But as the Hartford Courant reported on the eve of the 5-year anniversary of 9/11, “Connecticut’s portion of Homeland Security funding is shrinking rapidly.” Specifically, “In 2004, the state got more than $20 million from the federal government. In 2005, the amount was reduced to $12.46 million. The state’s 2006 take will be $2.8 million. Some towns will get as little as $3,000 in Homeland Security funding in 2006.” In all, the state has seen federal homeland security funding slashed by 86 percent. [Source: Hartford Courant, 9/10/06]

BRIDGEPORT SECURITY GRANTS SLASHED BY 85 PERCENT:

The Stamford Advocate reports that “Bridgeport Mayor John Fabrizi said his city’s federal funding has shrunk from $932,000 two years ago to $136,000 this year.” [Source: Stamford Advocate, 8/26/06]

STAMFORD SECURITY GRANTS SLASHED BY 88 PERCENT; MAYOR SAYS IRAQ TO BLAME:

The Stamford Advocate reported that “Five years after the worst terrorist attacks on American soil, the city’s share of homeland security funding is plummeting. Stamford’s share of the federal funds distributed by the state Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security dropped 88 percent from 2004 to 2006. It went from $764,247 in 2004, to $413,458 in 2005, to $93,418 this year.” The newspaper noted that city officials confirmed they will have to cut back on training local first responders. Mayor Dannel Malloy “blames the Bush administration for giving too much focus—and too many resources—onto the war in Iraq.” He said, “I think our commitments overseas are draining our abilities to respond at home.” [Stamford Advocate, 9/10/06]

NEW HAVEN CUT OFF FROM URBAN SECURITY GRANTS:

Despite Lieberman sitting on the Homeland Security Committee that oversees homeland security eligiblity and funding, in 2006, the Yale Daily News reported that “New Haven has again been left off the list of cities eligible for a U.S. Department of Homeland Security grant targeted to help urban areas.” New Haven originally received some money from the program, but because of budget cuts and subsequent changes in eligibility requirements, the city was cut off. Lieberman has issued press releases decrying the moves – but he has not used his senior position on the Senate committee overseeing the program to actually do anything about it. Worse, he skipped a critical vote in 2003 to better-fund programs targeting homeland security money to high-threat urban areas. The first and only grant was originally used to improve “communication networks between fire, police and emergency medical services” but because of the budget cuts and eligibility changes, the city “has been unable to execute all of its plans.” [Source: Yale Daily News, 1/6/06 Senate Roll Call Vote #302, 7/24/03]

DESPITE LIEBERMAN’S SENIORITY, CONNECTICUT GETS STIFFED ON TRANSIT SECURITY:

According to the Stamford Advocate, Connecticut is now receiving less than 1.5 percent of federal transit/rail security grants targeted at the tri-state area. Robert Wilson, executive director of the South Western Regional Planning Agency, told the newspaper, “I would expect Connecticut would get more than this. This is just a crumb.” New York is receiving $29.5 million, New Jersey is receiving $7.5 million and Connecticut is receiving just $510,000. This, despite the fact that, for instance, the New Haven Line carries about 110,000 passengers a day. [Source: Stamford Advocate, 11/6/05]

Joe on Homeland Security: All Talk, No Action

LIEBERMAN ON HOMELAND SECURITY:
ALL TALK, NO ACTION FOR CONNECTICUT

Sen. Joe Lieberman has issued a lot of press releases about his supposed commitment to seriously funding Connecticut’s homeland security needs. He has bragged about his senior position on the Senate Homeland Security Committee supposedly meaning solid results for Connecticut.

But the record shows that while he’s talked a good game, he’s primarily delivered devastating budget cuts while missing the most critical votes in the Senate to force the Bush administration to get serious about homeland security. If Senator Lieberman can’t even show up for security funding for Connecticut citizens, what will he show up for?

LIEBERMAN ISSUES 8 PRESS RELEASES BEMOANING SECURITY BUDGET CUTS, THEN SKIPS ALL VOTES TO INCREASE SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS:

In the lead up to the contentious debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate about appropriating money to fulfill the first full budget of the newly created Department of Homeland Security, Lieberman issued at least six press releases bemoaning the inadequate budget the President had proposed. But when it came time for Congress to do something about it and better-fund homeland security, Lieberman was nowhere to be found. Specifically, Lieberman missed every single vote on funding the Department of Homeland Security in its first year. Most of the legislation voted on would have significantly increased funding for homeland security. The Associated Press noted that instead of attending critical votes to fund and increase the first budget of the Department of Homeland Security, Lieberman “toured a job training center in Arizona, a nanotechnology company in California and a high-tech manufacturing company in New Hampshire.” [Sources: Senate Roll Call Votes #291-306, 7/22/03-7/24/03 Lieberman press releases, 9/17/03, 9/10/03, 6/29/03, 6/17/03, 5/15/03, 3/20/03, 2/27/03, 1/30/03, 1/17/03, 1/16/03 Associated Press, 7/25/03]

LIEBERMAN SAYS CONNECTICUT CITIES AT RISK OF TERROR ATTACK, YET SKIPPED DECIDING VOTE TO INCREASE SECURITY FUNDING FOR CONNECTICUT CITIES:

In 2006, Lieberman issued a press release saying “Connecticut cities are at risk for terrorist attacks” and bemoaning the fact that, because of budget cuts, Connecticut cities had being cut off from the federal government’s program to target homeland security funds to urban areas. “Year after year, reduced funding nationwide for homeland security grants, pursuing a wrong-headed policy in exact opposition to what every expert says it should follow,” Lieberman said. “Forcing cities to compete for an ever decreasing share of federal support is tantamount to disarming in the middle of a war.” Yet, on 7/24/03, Lieberman could have cast the deciding vote to pass bipartisan legislation increasing homeland security funding for the very programs that could have targeted money to high-threat urban areas. The amendment was authored by New York Sen. Charles Schumer (D) in response to news that homeland security funding was not being properly targeted to urban centers. The legislation was defeated on a tie vote – meaning Lieberman’s missed vote resulted in the bill being killed. Had the legislation passed, it could have meant critical homeland security money for the Connecticut cities that Lieberman lamented were cut off from urban-targeted homeland security resources because of budget cuts. The same day he skipped this critical vote to bring money back to Connecticut, he was in Connecticut holding a public event to trumpet his efforts to bring money back to the state. [Source: Senate Roll Call Vote #302, 7/24/03 Lieberman press release, 6/17/03 Lieberman press release, 7/24/03 Lieberman press release, 1/3/06]

LIEBERMAN SKIPPED VOTE ON DODD BILL TO FUND FIRST RESPONDERS; DODD HARSHLY CRITICAL OF THOSE WHO DIDN’T HELP PASS BILL:

On 7/24/03, Lieberman skipped a vote on legislation authored by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that would have significantly increased funding for Connecticut and other states’ firefighters, law enforcement personnel, and emergency medical personnel by reducing President Bush’s tax cut for those making more than $1 million a year. After the vote, Dodd criticized those who did not help pass it. “People here have left themselves vulnerable politically,” he said. “And they’ve also exposed the vulnerability of the country.” [Source: Senate Roll Call Vote #299, 7/24/03 Hartford Courant, 7/26/03]

LIEBERMAN SKIPPED VOTE TO INCREASE PORT SECURITY FUNDING; BILL DIED ON 2-VOTE MARGIN:

On 7/23/03, Lieberman skipped a vote on legislation to increase port security grants by $300 million. The bill was defeated on a 2-vote margin. [Source: Senate Roll Call Vote #294, 7/23/03]

LIEBERMAN SKIPPED DECIDING VOTE TO CRACKDOWN ON HOMELAND SECURITY CONTRACTING ABUSES:

Following an explosive story in the New York Times about lobbyists trying to profit off homeland security contracts, legislation was proposed to create safeguards against top Bush administration officials using departmental funds to personally profit. Specifically, a bill came to the floor of the Senate to prevent federal homeland security employees from immediately cashing in their experience and lobbying for firms with business before the federal government. Lieberman skipped the vote, and the bill died on a tie vote. In other words, Lieberman’s absence meant the difference between the bill passing and the bill being killed. Not surprisingly, reports have subsequently surfaced about Homeland Security officials leaving their jobs and immediately cashing in. As the New York Times reported in June of 2006, “At least 90 officials at the Department of Homeland Security or the White House Office of Homeland Security—including the department’s former secretary, Tom Ridge; the former deputy secretary, Adm. James M. Loy; and the former under secretary, Asa Hutchinson—are executives, consultants or lobbyists for companies that collectively do billions of dollars’ worth of domestic security business.” [New York Times, 4/29/03 AP, 1/13/05 New York Times, 6/18/06; Roll Call Vote #305, 7/24/03, U.S. Code Title 18, 207]

Joe Lieberman's Rhetoric vs. Reality on Iraq

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN CLAIMS TO WANT TO END THE IRAQ WAR: In his first campaign commercial after losing the Democratic primary in 2006, Lieberman said “I want to help end the war in Iraq.” [Source: National Journal, 8/11/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN VOTED AGAINST ALL LEGISLATION TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ: Lieberman has opposed every single resolution in Congress that would urge an end to the Iraq War. On 11/15/05, Lieberman was one of only 5 Democrats to vote against legislation “that would have pressured the administration to outline a plan to draw down U.S. forces in Iraq,” according to the Washington Post. On 6/22/06, Lieberman voted against two pieces of legislation pushing Bush to draft an exit strategy from Iraq. According to the Boston Globe, one was a “proposal to withdraw US troops from Iraq within a year” and another was a “nonbinding amendment that would have called on President Bush to begin withdrawing troops by the end of 2006 and to make ‘phased redeployments’ out of Iraq thereafter.” [Washington Post, 11/16/05; Senate Roll Call Vote #322, 11/15/05; Senate Roll Call Vote #182 and #181, 6/22/06; Boston Globe, 6/23/06]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN CLAIMS TO HAVE NEVER PUSHED THE IRAQ-AL QAEDA STORYLINE: Days after the release of a Senate report debunking the myth of ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, Lieberman appeared on Face the State to claim, “I have seen no evidence that Iraq was tied to 9/11.” [Source: Face the State, 9/17/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN PUSHED FALSE IRAQ/AL QAEDA TIES TO JUSTIFY THE IRAQ WAR: On 12/15/03, Lieberman went on national television to push the myth that evidence existed tying Iraq to the 9/11 terrorists. “I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists,” he said. “I’ve seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s government and al Qaeda.” [Source: MSNBC’s Hardball, 12/15/03]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN SAYS HE HAS STRONGLY OPPOSED BUSH ON IRAQ: On 9/9/06 Lieberman’s campaign claimed to the New Haven register that Lieberman “has repeatedly and harshly criticized the Bush administration” for the War in Iraq. [Sources: New Haven Register, 9/9/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN HAS BEEN THE CHIEF DEFENDER OF BUSH’S IRAQ POLICY: The New Yorker noted just last year that Lieberman has been “unapologetic about his defense of Bush’s Iraq policy.” Lieberman told the magazine that “Bottom line, I think Bush has it right.” [Source: New Yorker, 3/21/05]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN CLAIMS TO HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED GETTING MORE INFO ON IRAQ: After skipping a key vote to force the White House to provide more concrete reports on the status of Iraq, Lieberman told the Hartford Courant he has always supported that goal. “Why not have more information?” he asked. [Source: Hartford Courant, 9/13/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN CAST DECIDING VOTE AGAINST IRAQ REPORTING LEGISLATION: According to Senate records, in 2004, Lieberman cast the deciding vote against legislation “To require reports on the efforts of the President to stabilize Iraq and relieve the burden on members of the Armed Forces of the United States deployed in Iraq.” Had Lieberman not voted against the legislation, it would have moved forward. Instead, it died in a Senate debate decided by one vote. [Source: Senate Roll Call Vote #138, 6/23/04]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN DENIES HE EVER SAID HE SUPPORTED INDEFINITE DEPLOYMENTS IN IRAQ: As recently as August 20th, Lieberman has appeared on national television claiming “I’ve never been for an indefinite, unconditional deployment of American troops” and insisting that such assertions were a “distortion that my opponent managed to convince too many people” about. [Sources: CBS Face the Nation, 8/20/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN SAID HE SUPPORTS PERMANENT DEPLOYMENTS IN IRAQ: In 2003, Lieberman told CNN: “We may, over the long term, with the consent of the new Iraqi government, establish some permanent bases in Iraq. And wouldn’t that be a dramatic change, where we have an allied government there in Iraq, at the center of the Middle East, where we may have not a permanent police presence, but one or another military base that’s working in cooperation with the government there?” [Source: CNN, 4/20/03]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN SAID HE SUPPORTED IRAQ INVEASION BECAUSE OF WMD: Introducing the Iraq War Resolution on Oct. 2, 2002, Lieberman declared that Saddam ‘has continued, without question, to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them on distant targets.’” As the Norwich Bulletin reported, “the weapons of mass destruction Saddam supposedly stockpiled [was] a key factor Bush and Lieberman cited in arguing for an invasion.” On 6/25/04, Lieberman told CNN that “Iraq did pose a threat to us” because “they had weapons of mass destruction.” He said this long after CNN reported that President Bush’s chief weapons inspector, David Kay, told Congress that “his group [of inspectors] found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.” [CNN, 6/25/04; CNN, 1/25/04; Norwich Bulletin, 12/26/05]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN SAYS WMD WAS A “SIDE BENEFIT”; WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED WAR ANYWAY: On Glenn Beck’s national radio show on 8/22/06, Lieberman agreed with the host that the WMD rationale that he pushed as a justification for war was merely “a nice side benefit” and that the Iraq War was really a vehicle for other objectives. Beck said, “The weapons of mass destruction was a nice side benefit. We were trying to go and pop the head of the snake in Iran. That’s what we were trying to do. And I don’t think anybody had the courage or could actually come out and say that with world politics the way they are.” Lieberman immediately agreed, saying “You’re right.” [Glenn Beck radio show, 8/22/06]

RHETORIC – LIEBERMAN SAYS HE’S LONG WANTED RUMSFELD TO RESIGN: Lieberman has said he has long tried to push for a change of leadership at the Pentagon because of the Iraq War. In an 8/31/06 press release the Lieberman campaign said “three weeks ago on CBS’s Face the Nation, Senator Lieberman said unequivocally that the Bush Administration needs a change in leadership and a change in direction at the Pentagon, and repeated his call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation.” [Source: Lieberman press release, 8/31/06]

REALITY – LIEBERMAN FOUGHT TO PROTECT RUMSFELD AND KEEP HIM HEADING THE PENTAGON: In the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, Lieberman published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal subtitled “Why Rumsfeld Must Stay.” He wrote: “It is neither sensible nor fair to force the resignation of the secretary of defense, who clearly retains the confidence of the commander in chief, in the midst of a war…Secretary Rumsfeld’s removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq.” Similarly, on 4/25/06, the New Haven Register reported that he specifically refused to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation. He said “Whether Don Rumsfeld should continue to serve … is up to him and the president at whose pleasure he serves.” [Source: Wall Street Journal, 5/14/04; New Haven Register, 4/25/06]