Joe Lieberman's Criminal Integrity


Sun told the paper that "she would attempt to find the petty cash report by Monday."


Sun declined Monday to allow reporters to examine the campaign's petty cash journal.

New York Times, 10/24/06

As the battle of interpretation continues, The New York Times sorted 362 of Mr. Lieberman's war-related comments since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks into content-related categories, and found that he has alternated his arguments about the parties and the war's prosecution, shifting tone at critical points as political circumstances have evolved.

There's no surprise here that Tammy Sun lied to the press.  It's what she does, on orders from Joe Lieberman.  Maybe he's angry again.  Or maybe it's part of a strategy designed to run out the clock and mask highly illegal activity from Mr. Integrity.  Who knows?  

Let's look at the big picture here.  That's 387,000 dollars in cash on the streets of Connecticut that Lieberman won't disclose.  This is a clear violation of the entire rationale for FEC laws, because from now on anyone can simply disguise their spending in petty cash logs that they don't reveal.  Lieberman could have spent this on vote-buying, intimidation, or illegal cash payments to ward bosses, and he probably did so, or at least that's what the rumors all across the Connecticut Democratic Party machine suggest.  But we don't know.  And Joe Lieberman is hiding what he should reveal, and lying about it.

This is a truly evil man who will say anything to get elected.

And let's look at Iraq, and how he shifts his stance when the winds change about this war.  Last night in the debate he veered back and forth from his antiwar position ('no one wants to end the war more than me without comprosing America's national security, and that's a fact') to his strong support for the war.  This is something he's always done.  There's an important article in the New York Times about his changing rhetoric on the war in the context of elections where he must appeal to people who don't agree with him.

When Lieberman was running for President, he was critical of Bush.  But that quickly shifted after he lost, as Lieberman began praising Bush and bashing Democrats.

Immediately after the Hussein regime was toppled in 2003, Mr. Lieberman, while running for president, said the White House lacked a post-Hussein plan, criticized Mr. Bush for acting unilaterally, and said the president threatened to give a "bad name" to a "just war" by failing to make the case for why it was necessary.

Such criticisms all but disappeared after the 2004 presidential election, and Mr. Lieberman later defended the war, saying that it was necessary to stay in Iraq because the world was safer without Mr. Hussein in power. After President Bush's 2005 State of the Union address, Mr. Lieberman called the president's comments about the elections in Iraq "stirring."

"The president spoke about the importance of completing our mission in Iraq, and I couldn't agree more," Mr. Lieberman said in a statement...

As Mr. Lamont mounted his challenge here this spring, based largely on opposition to the war, Mr. Lieberman grew quieter on the subject of Iraq, usually limiting his remarks except to say he stayed true to his convictions. It was only in the final days before the Aug. 8 primary that Mr. Lieberman spoke out more forcefully, usually referring to critiques of the war that he made in 2003 and 2004 to rebut Mr. Lamont's accusations.

"What I don't think is right, as I have said over and over again, are many of the Bush administration's decisions regarding the execution of the war," Mr. Lieberman said in a speech the weekend before the primary. "The fact is, I have openly and clearly disagreed with and criticized the president."

As for fellow Democrats, Mr. Lieberman had negative things to say about them more than three dozen times in the past five years, with his harshest words coming after he lost the Democratic primary.

As early as July 28, 2003, Mr. Lieberman said, "Some in my party are sending out a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and, more broadly, are not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom."

Lieberman radically changed his rhetoric once again towards the end of the primary, when he read the polls and the writing on the wall.

Near the end of this year's primary, Mr. Lieberman ramped up his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the war, and soon after his loss, called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign. More recently he has called for "bringing the troops home." Yet he continues to strongly oppose setting a timetable for withdrawal, echoing the position of the White House.

It's not just political circumstances.  He also lies when the facts on the ground change.  Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies, there were WMDs, Saddam was a threat to world peace, democracy is great - he changed his position with the times.

Mr. Lieberman repeatedly cited a connection between Mr. Hussein and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks immediately after they occurred, echoing a refrain from the Bush administration with at least 10 mentions of such links in 2001 and 2002. But Mr. Lieberman stopped making such references long before the administration: He appears to have last connected the Iraqi dictator with the suicide flights in an October 2002 op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, a year before Vice President Cheney reiterated them on NBC's "Meet the Press" in 2003.

His rationale for authorizing the war has also changed over the years. While Mr. Lieberman initially invoked weapons of mass destruction, he was much more likely, later on, to speak of the general danger Mr. Hussein posed to the United States and the world.

"Did Saddam have a direct hand in the attacks on America that began on Sept. 11?" he asked rhetorically in October 2001, according to a Wall Street Journal article. "The evidence at our disposal is circumstantial but suggestive. We do know that he has not just the motive and malevolence, but the means. And we also know that Iraqi intelligence officials have met at critical times with members of the Al Qaeda network."

In March 2002 -- about a year before the United States invaded Iraq -- Mr. Lieberman cited connections between Iraqi intelligence and Mohammed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 hijackers, on the Fox News Network. Again, he said the evidence was circumstantial, but added, "I don't need it to tell me that Saddam is a danger to us, a ticking time bomb, and we ought to take him out of power."

Joe Lieberman is a true sociopath, brilliant and charming, narcissistic, and dishonest.  If he buys votes, that's ok, and of course, the public doesn't have a right to know about it on Monday even if the public had a right to know about it on Sunday.  Criminal activity is fine for Joe, and hey, if he changes his position and rhetoric on Iraq because he can read a poll, that's just integrity and a steadfast spirit, even if thousands are killed.

Lieberman is a deeply sick human being, someone with no moral compass who will say anything to be elected.  He's also a great politician who knows how to confuse the electorate, as he does with his latest antiwar ad where he promises to bring the troops home.  A promise he intends to keep, I'm sure.

Tags: Alan Schlesinger, Connecticut, CT-Sen, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)



Re: Joe Lieberman's Criminal Integrity

Matt-- What is the CT press reaction to the petty cash issue? Is it getting a good deal of press (TV as well as print) and becoming a thorn for Lieberman, or is it (at this point) confined primarily to the blogs? I can't quite get a sense of that.

Thanks for your great reporting on the CT Senate race. Keep it up.

by Mathew Gross 2006-10-24 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: press

Let me clarify that -- I know you're quoting the Courant above. My question is whether this is gaining traction with voters, in your opinion.

by Mathew Gross 2006-10-24 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: press

Lots of media traction, still a complicated story for voters.

by Matt Stoller 2006-10-24 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman's Criminal Integrity

Get people to volunteer for Joe's GOTV effort,  hand out a few pamphlets, toss the rest in a can and then go see if you get paid in cash. Maybe they can, pretending to be Joe workers, find out who's handing out the $100 bills to buy votes. It's the only conceivable thing he could be doing with this. This is Mob style politics in quaint little Connecticut.

by fred sanford 2006-10-24 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman's Criminal Integrity

If anyone has video surrounding this revelation I would love to add it to my 'Better Late, Late, Late than Never' media project. Any independent video journalists out there?

by rbottoms 2006-10-24 06:06AM | 0 recs
Criminal Integrity

My bet is that the petty cash journal does not exist.  The Lieberschnitzel campaign probably has some flunky accountant furiously creating one right now.  I predict that they will come up with one by the weekend, and if they do it should be thoroughly scrutinized for signs that it was generated recently.

by global yokel 2006-10-24 06:25AM | 0 recs
This personal attack is over the top

There is more to life than politics. I believe Joe Lieberman is a good and decent man.

Gore made a political mistake in choosing him, but I think that Gore, who knew Lieberman very well for decades, would not have put a sociopath on the ticket.

Although I have mocked Lieberman's sanctimony--and will do so again very soon--I do believe he succeeds in keeping the ten commandments in his personal life as well as or better than most.

Nevertheless, Joe Lieberman has been a really lousy Democrat. Ned Lamont will be a great senator and since CT deserves a real Democrat, I repeat:

Beat Holy Joe
Beat him bad

by stevehigh 2006-10-24 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: This personal attack is over the top

I agree to some extent. Even I would not call Lieberman an evil man. He is however, delusional and narcissistic. Calling Lamont a son of a bitch after a debate, while he praises people like Cheney just shows you what kind of people this man values. I actually believe Cheney is an evil man and if Lieberman and Cheney were in a country where democracy was not strong, I truly believe Cheney would have made himself a dictator and Lieberman would be making all kinds of excuses for him if their agendas matched.

by Pravin 2006-10-24 06:52AM | 0 recs
No argument there

Holy Joe must go.

by stevehigh 2006-10-24 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: This personal attack is over the top

I agree -- and I'm very much pro-Lamont.

It's waaayyy  past time for Joe to go, but "evil" and "sociopath" are a bit too heavy on the hyperbole for my taste.   I don't think I've ever disliked a politician more than Dubya, but I don't think I would honestly even use those terms to describe him (Rove on the other hand...).

I understand the stakes in CT-SEN, and of course, I'm just a guest here, like everyone else not named Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, Jerome Armstrong, et al... but that's the kind of rhetoric I would expect from other places, but not MyDD.   I'm not saying I won't be continuing to visit DD every day - it's still one of my favorite e-visits each day - but it's a little disappointing to see such rhetoric so casually tossed about from a site that I think rightly prides itself on cool, calm, rational Democratic advocacy and analysis.

by zonk 2006-10-24 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: This personal attack is over the top

I also agree.  I've seen evidence of Lieberman being manipulative, coercive, & dishonest, but certainly not evil.

by NJIndependent 2006-10-24 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: This personal attack is over the top

I also agree.  I've seen evidence of Lieberman being manipulative, coercive, & dishonest, but certainly not evil.

You're kidding, right?

by Matt Stoller 2006-10-24 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: This personal attack is over the top

Yeah, I love the analysis and deconstruction of Lieberman's political actions, but this is starting to sound like a rant from LaRouchePAC!  Can we separate criticism of shrewd or not so shrewd manipulative politics from moral proclamations, if only to maintain a bit of objectivity here?

by cwreno2001 2006-10-24 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: This personal attack is over the top

The concern trolls are out in force today, aren't they?

by Matt Stoller 2006-10-24 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: This personal attack is over the top

That's a bit insulting, dontcha think?

Granted, I don't have a lengthy comment history here (though I do elsewhere... same username) - and like I said, it's your house, so your rules...

But that said, believe I'm a concern troll or not - let me state a few things.

I've been a Lamont supporter from the get-go - no I haven't donated to him (I don't have much powder and simply preferred to spend the little I do in other races).  Living about 1000 miles from CT, neither have I volunteered for Ned.  If those two facts alone make me part of the problem, so be it...

But I - I think along with the other commenters - simply thought it was a bit of stretch to apply "evil" and "sociopath" to Lieberman.

Narcissistic?  Absoultely.

Self-Serving?  You bet.

A back-stabber Vichy Dem?  I don't see how one can say otherwise.

Deserve to be booted from office?  Yup.

Add them all up, though -- and I just don't see sociopath or evil.   Maybe my bar is higher than it should be, but fer chrissakes...  that makes me a concern troll?

by zonk 2006-10-24 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: This personal attack is over the top

Don't you think that the presence of so many "concern trolls" might be a sign that you're going too far overboard on this one and hurting the credibility of your argument with it?

Get a grip.  Joe Lieberman is a lot of bad things.  Evil (or sociopathic) is not one of them.  Whenever a contest disintegrates into "good vs evil" and loses the focus of why you should actually support one side or the other, nothing good comes of it.

by NJIndependent 2006-10-24 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: This personal attack is over the top

What's the phrase for shifting wherever the polls go and lying about ever shifting in the first place? I don't think it is sociopath.

Of course, lots of people with moral compasses come to Washington where they start acting haywire. Kind of like a magnetic compass in northern Greenland.

Indeed, Joe may be sincere ... we don't know whether he has to lie to himself first before he can successfully lie to others, or IOW, delusional.

by BruceMcF 2006-10-24 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman's Criminal Integrity

The New York Times sorted 362 of Mr. Lieberman's war-related comments since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks into content-related categories, and found that he has alternated his arguments about the parties and the war's prosecution, shifting tone at critical points as political circumstances have evolved.

If this isn't being read in a voiceover in a Lamont  ad by the end of the week, he doesn't deserve to win.  

by dr bloor 2006-10-24 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman's Criminal Integrity

The lead-in, just the, "... shifting tone ... as political circumstances have evolved." over top a running graph in the foreground of opposition to the war, stop at a low point, a strong pro-war sound bite of Joe from the time, run to somewhere around 50, a sound bite of Joe at that point, and finally the present, and a pro war and anti war sound bite of Joe now.

Indeed, can do the same ad twice, with Bush unfavourability rating at the poll and sound bites of Lieberman on the administration.

by BruceMcF 2006-10-24 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman is a LIAR.

His nose is growing.  Watch the video here.

"I solemnly swear to help myself and no one but myself."

by liebermeforme 2006-10-24 07:28AM | 0 recs
So what language would you use?

While I might not use the word 'evil', my opinion of Joe has fallen each day during this election.  

When you hear Lieberman's preaching every once in a while it may seem like a balance in a body that is self-correcting.

Well, now that body cannot police itself, so the preaching is obviously not enough. Lieberman's approach does not work.

Now when you actually meet the object of Lieberman's scorn, and understand that Lamont has opened every door in the name of fairness and civility, and you see Lieberman bubble over, you get a glimpse of the real man.    

And when you see, up close, how deeply Lieberman believes his own vicious claims, what words can you use?   'Loss of moral compass?' 'Ethically challenged?'  Evil might be shorthand for that.    I'm not willing to use it, but lately, it is very hard to see past everything that is wrong-headed, aggressive, reckless, and ambitious in Lieberman when you follow his actions day by day.

All you have to do is follow Lieberman's statements and when he points and Lamont, look instead at the accuser.

When Lieberman called a presser to claim in plain English, that Lamont was trying to buy this election, his incredible 380K cash spread was to come to light days later.  He must have known.  

When Lieberman says he is scraping by and must combat Lamont's spending, it must be remembered Lamont has only written checks in reaction to funds spent by Lieberman.  Lieberman has outspent Lamont at every turn.

When Lieberman has anything to say about money, please remember that Lamont offered a spending cap very early in this race.   Lieberman declined and takes money from a well organized network that has many ties to the White House.

When Lieberman cries about the state of play in the air war, it must be remembered that Lieberman has the only ad where the facts are invented, and are not to be found in the article cited in the ad.   The copy of the NYT article is never quoted by the Lieberman campaign.

When Lieberman calls a Lamont a liar and jokes that as AG, it would be proper to sue Lamont over advertisements, all you have to do is look at the TV and the mailers.  A lot of the content comes from Lieberman's mouth.  The material contains facts have citations that can be followed, quotes are attributed.

When Lieberman complains about state of play in the ground war, please remember that the Lamont website is open to comments from all comers, and disrupted by trolls every day. Lieberman's site is closed.

When Lieberman accused Lamont of hacking his website, remember that Lamont's team offered tech support and hosting for his site.   Lieberman took this to the authorities, and made a lot of press happen over something that seemed to have logical resource-based explanations.

Lamont's team took the petty cash issue to the authorities, and there are logical explanations, but those are not so clean.    

What both of these incidents have in common is the fact that no transaction logs are being produced.  One may clear Lamont's team of any suspicion, the other may clear Lieberman.

by drowsy 2006-10-24 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman's Criminal Integrity

Even though they won't show it to the press, though, they have to show it to the FEC, don't they?

Will the FEC actually do anything about all this before the election?

by Silent sound 2006-10-24 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman's Criminal Integrity

The way things are going, I would not be surprised to see Iraq war crimes trials in the World Court or some other venue.  Joe Lieberman has his name on legislation authorizing this illegal, aggressive war.  The man who prides himself on his high moral stance and religious piety might in fact be judged a war criminal.

by Bob H 2006-10-24 02:22PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads