Sunday

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

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.