Comments (63)

Rich wrote on January 23, 2007 12:32 PM:

Dear Joe,

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

Cordially,

Rich

Brian wrote on January 23, 2007 12:37 PM:

So, how many campaign promises has Lieberman broken so far?

When Joe accused Lamont of being a terrorist sympathizer for talking about a plan to pull out of Iraq, and when he lied about Lamont's campaign bringing down his website it should have been as obvious as Lieberman's jowls that he is a slime-ball...

I am asking Connecticut voters - Why did you elect this scum, and is there any way you can recall him?

Lawyer wrote on January 23, 2007 12:41 PM:

It's not the CT. voters who are at fault (remember Joe won principally because Republicans voted for him). The real fault lies with the Dem establishment who basically abandoned Lamont worried that if Lamont didn't win, Lieberman would cut and run. This was a winnable race for Lamont (granted, he made some mistakes as well), but Schumer, Hilary, the DSCC and all of them got what they deserved by not supporting Lamont in the general election.

Crust wrote on January 23, 2007 12:45 PM:

Re: Schumer, Hilary, the DSCC and all of them got what they deserved by not supporting Lamont in the general election.

Not true. They did support Lamont in the general election. Not especially vigorously, to be sure, but they did support the Democratic candidate in the general.

Rich wrote on January 23, 2007 12:53 PM:

I think Lieberman won simply because the primary voters were not representative of the people who voted in the general election.

Bearpaw wrote on January 23, 2007 12:53 PM:

How pathetic Lieberman has become. How many last chances does he want the Bush League to have?

wlgriffi wrote on January 23, 2007 12:59 PM:

Joe Lieberman (I-CL "via con dias",adios,shalome.

P J Evans wrote on January 23, 2007 1:00 PM:

How long will it take for JoeL to understand that nothing we do will change what's happening in Iraq (except adding more targets for them to shoot at)? He's so out of it...

Redshift wrote on January 23, 2007 1:01 PM:

Sen. Lieberman, they had their "last chance." They've had far more "last chances" than they deserve, and when this one doesn't succeed, they'll tinker and call it another "new strategy" and you'll demand that we give that/i> a chance. They ignored all advice other than yes-men, and you'd have to be a blind idiot to think that's going to produce good results.

There isn't "plenty of time" for our fighting men and women; there isn't "plenty of time" for an administration that makes our position in the Middle East and the world day by day. Put your family members in Iraq, and maybe you'd have a shred of credibility as you ask others to risk "plenty of time" there.

jeffs wrote on January 23, 2007 1:04 PM:

Lieberman: "Please let us drag this out at least until we're deep into the 2008 election cycle, so John and I can say, 'Hey, look, you agreed to keep the troops there,' and we can present our plan for victory if elected, because, frankly, our domestic agenda is non-existent and Iraq is all we've got."

Rich wrote on January 23, 2007 1:07 PM:

I think the issue is: How long will it take for Lieberman to switch parties? My guess is when the Democrats rightly try to stop Bush from invading Iran.

Lou Matrazzo wrote on January 23, 2007 1:10 PM:

The man has become a total joke. That wasn't a question, it was a boot licking joke. 3000 + American's killed, many thousands more maimed, unknown numbers of Iraquis killed. The people of Conn. should be ashamed. How did Kerry chose this idiot anyway? It should have been Edwards!

Equal Opportunity Cynic wrote on January 23, 2007 1:15 PM:

"(I-CT)" isn't really appropriate since there is an Independent Party in CT who didn't nominate Lieberman.

Of course he might not be the CfL nominee again since he lost control of "his" party when John Orman took the initiative to actually set up a real party, something that had apparently been too much work for Joe.

Crust wrote on January 23, 2007 1:21 PM:

Lou Matrazzo, Kerry did pick Edwards. It was Gore who picked Lieberman for veep back in 2000.

oldtree wrote on January 23, 2007 1:27 PM:

this is funny. joe is funny. he is suffering from some serious memory loss and delusion, but his constituents can clear that up by recalling him if they want.
beyond that, just let him talk. he makes a fool of himself every day now. thanks joe

wagonjak wrote on January 23, 2007 1:37 PM:

I saw this jowly asshole this morning and I nearly wanted to throw my TV out the window.

Instead of critical remarks about this administration and the "New" surge, he spent most of his time criticizing fellow Senators and Congressmen who have come out against the latest "Bush strategy" to win the war.

What a lying Bush bitch!!!

klyde wrote on January 23, 2007 1:41 PM:

Will Joe slip the boy king some tongue at tonight's SOTU? You know give his boy a little boost.

My security code was "stiff" kind of appropriate for LIEberman.

Kitty Hunt wrote on January 23, 2007 1:43 PM:

Two words stand out in these comments: RECALL and IRAN. Sadly, I am afraid it is too late to do anything about Iran as the plans are underway and the 'surge' is a diversionary tactic. While we are planning peace marches and opposing the 'surge' there will be an 'incident' with the number one member of the 'axis of evil' that will require us to defend ourselves. At least Holy Joe didn't ask us to 'shut up for six or nine months' as did Bill Kristol. I agree that the Connecticutt Senator will soon change parties; he was always a Repug.

Greg Greene wrote on January 23, 2007 1:45 PM:

Funny: the Google ad that showed up right beneath the video when I watched it was headlined "High Blood Pressure." That's what I get every time I lay eyes on that son of a b...

What Bob Kerrey said about Bill Clinton holds far more true for the senator from Connecticut: Joe Lieberman -- <spit& gt; -- is an unusually good liar.

Stan wrote on January 23, 2007 1:45 PM:

The point is that whatever this administration does stems from politics and not policy. The surge itself is motivated by politics. It will probably be infused with politics. Bush cannot be trusted to do anything correctly.

Tony In Philly wrote on January 23, 2007 1:46 PM:

Really! Can't the voters of Connecticut put a recall on the next ballot - LIEberman "misrepresented" himself to the electorate. Dispicable!

Matachin wrote on January 23, 2007 2:04 PM:

Do you think Joe will literally kiss his man tonight?

Robert wrote on January 23, 2007 2:15 PM:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -
-- Theodore Roosevelt

Mike M. wrote on January 23, 2007 2:24 PM:

He sounds like he's trying to ask Petraeus on a date.

chris wrote on January 23, 2007 2:31 PM:

Let's not forget that this piece of trash also has decided not to investigate the government response to Katrina (after pledging to do so in order to win the election).
He is also tried to kill the investigation into Enron (threatening to cut funding to the investigators if they continued the investigation) - and he still had the balls to run for president after knowing his role in the Enron scandal. This man is scum!

Mam wrote on January 23, 2007 2:49 PM:

A while back I Googled...Connecticutt Newspapers and read what few 'Letters to the Editor' I could find about Joe Lieberman.....it was not pretty!!!
As I was reading them I got the feeling that it may just be a possiblility he will be recalled.
I tried to post a letter, but it would not let me, out of state letters were not accepted. Would have loved to tell the people of Conn. we were behind them if only they would start a recall. Hell, I would even donate some money to the cause....

Legalize wrote on January 23, 2007 2:52 PM:

Good to know Joe is down with us giving this failed venture only one more "last chance." Sure, why not? What does HE have to lose? How many men and women have to die for Joe's "last chance"? What about that Katrina investigation, Joe?

I think the Dems would be better off if they just cut Lieberman loose and took away his committee power; afterall, he's an independent and not part of the majority. If the Dems need ONE MORE VOTE on an issue they can always round up at least one GOPer willing to play ball, especially since the public has roundly endorsed their agenda.

I'm sure David Brooks will write an obtuse column defending Joe against the mean liberals.

calmo wrote on January 23, 2007 2:57 PM:

Why isn't this session more interactive? Why does the camera even go to the General, (who moves so little it's a relief to see the occasional blink, restoring one's belief that the General is still alive)?
Actually I am mesmerized by the General's trance-like stare and hope that it is not a JoeL spell but some insect that has lighted on the senator's forehead.
Joe speaks like he has the admiration and respect of his colleagues, colleagues he hopes are paying as close attention to him as the General...but as I say, the General's stare may mean something else.

MichaelAOlson wrote on January 23, 2007 2:57 PM:

There should never have been an Iraq war. That's period!

Mark F. wrote on January 23, 2007 2:57 PM:

I would love to state my opinion about Joe Lieberman, but I'm guessing the word "twat" is not allowed on this board.

joesaho wrote on January 23, 2007 2:58 PM:

Lieberman was saying in the general that "Nobody wants to bring the troops home more than I do" and also made comments to the effect that he thought we'd be able to start drawing down in the near future. Unfortunately enough CT voters took him at his word. Lieberman knew he couldn't pull his escalation schtick in this state and get re-elected. I guess the people that voted for him should have known better; Lamont was running ads with the very clear message that "A vote for Lieberman means more war". But even here in CT it's hard to get an incumbent out when he's allowed to lie his way to office and then not be held accountable for his words (thanks a lot, Hartford Courant).

Soprano wrote on January 23, 2007 2:59 PM:

Legalize wrote:
"I think the Dems would be better off if they just cut Lieberman loose and took away his committee power; afterall, he's an independent and not part of the majority. If the Dems need ONE MORE VOTE on an issue they can always round up at least one GOPer willing to play ball, especially since the public has roundly endorsed their agenda."

As soon as that happened, Joe would caucus with the Republicans, which would throw the Senate to them. Joe has the Dems over a barrel, and he's acting that way. The worst kind of hardball politics.

Fides wrote on January 23, 2007 3:10 PM:

As someone who has lived most of his life in Connecticut (in fact, near by Joe), I apologize profusely.

In my defense, I wasn't living there in 2006, and in 2000 the only alternative was Phil Giordano, who was a Republican child molester.

MFA wrote on January 23, 2007 3:17 PM:

"...then there will be plenty of time for the resolutions of disapproval..."

Not for several hundred soldiers and perhaps tens of thousands of Iraqis, there won't.

CatStaff wrote on January 23, 2007 3:21 PM:

Joe's just trying to get his licks in while he can. He's well aware that, come 2008, the Senate will be even more firmly in Dem control, and when you look up "irrelevant" in the dictionary, Lieberman's picture will be there.

gcdem wrote on January 23, 2007 3:47 PM:

I'm no consitutional scholar, but apparently Article I of the US Constitution states that only the US Senate can remove a senator. CT voters had their shot to get rid of him on one day in Nov 2006, and now we are all stuck with him for 6 years.

Tomazulob wrote on January 23, 2007 3:49 PM:

As long as the election in 2008 keeps looming, the relevance of Joe L will be short-lived in less than 2 years. I don't know the legalities behind a recall in CT, but I have to believe that it takes time to do this. Once the Democrats take a larger chunk of the majority in the Senate (and the longer this "war" goes on, the more of a certainty that will be) in 2009, his relevance will be gone. It is tragic that more Americans are going to have to die for this, but unless more people become outraged, this horrible outcome is not going to change.

Karen wrote on January 23, 2007 4:06 PM:

Bill Clinton is to blame for Lieberman winning. Lamont's campaign said that Clinton's Larry King appearance where he said it was a win-win for Democrats in CT whether the actual Democratic candidate won or whether Lieberman won was the single most damaging thing that happened. It was the signal to the money people and DC operatives that they would face no retribution for helping Lieberman.

Lets get rid of the Clinton's. Jeff Cohen's 2000 column is as relevant today:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/040900-104.htm

Dems held 57 Senate seats when Bill Clinton took office and a 258-176 majority in the House. The Clintons destroyed the Democratic Party. The Party is on the way back; lets end this Clinton cancer like killing a snake with a stone!

El Cid wrote on January 23, 2007 4:14 PM:

WAIT!! WAIT!! Maybe you just need to keep repeating the word "Bipartisan" to Joe Lieberman and he'll snap out of his partisan, extremist support for a troop escalation!!

Doesn't he deserve one, last, chance?

No? Yeah, you're probably right.

Kevin Hayden wrote on January 23, 2007 4:19 PM:

Somebody has to break the addictive cycle. Joe Bleederman is not up to the task, preferring to enable the hemopetroliac.

Shawn wrote on January 23, 2007 4:20 PM:

Didn't Lieberman want to end the era of "partisan polarizing politics" (or whatever)???

Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2007 4:22 PM:

Pathetic.

Craig Davie wrote on January 23, 2007 4:36 PM:

Once, just once, for God's sake, Joe, can't you speak for America?

Must your every utterance support those neocons whose first interest is the welfare and expansionist aims of the State of Israel?

I am NOT anti-Semitic... I support Israel's right to exist IN PEACE, but I am damn sure for America's interests FIRST and believe that American BLOOD should be shed only in the interest of our own nation.

In retrospect, even as a staunch Democrat, I am glad now that you were NOT given the opportunity to be the Vice-President of this country...given the ethics of those you are beholden to, it is probable some 'accident' would have befallen
Gore had he been inaugarated in 2001.

Joe wrote on January 23, 2007 5:06 PM:

What a pathetic little suckup Lieberman is. “Please fellow senators wait until everything is so totally f*cked up that the world is in danger of another world war to disagree with President Bush. I kinda like him ‘cause he kissed me once.”

Agjobs wrote on January 23, 2007 5:11 PM:

Everything has it's price Joe L. So how many dead soldiers is this "new way forward" worth. Someone just answer me that. How many flag drapped coffins is this last chance at victory worth? Then when the cost is tallied will the final price tag be worth what we may get out of it. A stable shia majority, Iranian satelite. I'm sorry but that seems to be the new definition of victory. So to obtain even that much someone tell me how many dead American Soldiers is that effort worth.

e wrote on January 23, 2007 5:56 PM:

Who's the hot, bored-looking chick behind Lieberman? I think I could show her a better time than listening to Sen. Droopy Dawg !

judyinnm wrote on January 23, 2007 6:22 PM:

Senator Lieberman, Sir: It has been nearly 4 years and countless (literally) deaths - there has been "plenty of time" for there to have been "success in Iraq". If the cricicism had taken place alot sooner, perhaps there could even have been a chance for "success in Iraq" but I doubt it.

Comte de Rochambeau wrote on January 23, 2007 6:28 PM:

As a Rebublican i feel it necessary to say that
Mr. Lieberman is not welcome in our party.
That goes for most of the currrent members of the GOP as they are imitation Republicans. True GOP
members are disgusted with the methods of Mr. Rove
and his ilk. Men and women such as Mr. DeLay and
Ms. Coulter are not and have never been GOP.
Rather they are extremist scum that highjacked the
Party of Mr. Lincoln and made it the criminal gang
that choose Mr. Bush as its figurehead while Mr. Cheney and his thieves looted the US Treasury.
As i recall only Mr. Kennedy has stated that the
war in Iraq was started to loot our Treasury.
He is correct and this should be stated as clearly as possible to inform the idiots that now
consider this conflict to be about terrorism.

Adrock wrote on January 23, 2007 6:33 PM:

Re: Clinton's Larry King appearance

Really? You mean people still watch Larry King?

John wrote on January 23, 2007 6:54 PM:

"Perhaps a last chance"--meaning that Lieberman *still* won't draw the line.

Whore.

Unmitigated Audacity wrote on January 23, 2007 7:01 PM:

Throw this scumbag out of the party. He is a sick, sick man. He's going to vote with the Repugs anyway. This is all about Iran. Buying time for Cheney to invade and REALLY blow up the entire Mid-east. Saving a (essentially illusory) one vote majority in the Senate by placating this fascist, or saving the world from the hell that follows an attack on Iran - what is really more important? Time to end politics as usual. Dump this addled gasbag and dump Cheney, before its too late. (BTW, Petraeus looked like he was comtemplating a bayonet charge, didn't he?)

upinarms wrote on January 23, 2007 7:08 PM:

Karen is so right about the Clintonization/destruction of the Democratic party,and our losses in congress. It's pathetic how much potential for the country was squandered because of Bill's inability to
keep his zipper up.

We can also thank HIll & Bill each for the parts they played in Joe LIEberman's win in CT. They did NOTHING!!!Seems if you dump on Bill as Joe and Poppy Bush did, he follows you around like a puppy.Now we have the prospect of Hill and Bill again in the W House---arg, what a dreadful thought!!

Can't you just see Holy Joe switch back to being a "loyal Dem" if Hillary wins the WH?

Compassman wrote on January 23, 2007 7:56 PM:

And the surviving family members of the fallen among the "augmentation" can sue Lieberman for reckless endangerment...

Frank wrote on January 23, 2007 11:36 PM:

How presumptious can this prize Bush lackey Lieberman be? I'am sure all the senators who are against the "surge" were insulted by his remarks..With each passing day, his being kicked out of the CT dem party becomes more and more justified. Now if the CT voters can just recall this Israeli shill....,

mrgavel wrote on January 24, 2007 12:34 AM:

What I want to know is when Lieberman is going to call for Americans to sacrifice for his and Bush's war, other than those in the military. Has anyone from the Lieberman family volunteered to go fight in this war? Has he called for tax increases to pay for this war? Has he asked anyone to sacrifice for this war other than the military? This is a man who has never, to my knowledge, served in the military who is very cavalier with the lives of other people's loved ones.

Caroline W wrote on January 24, 2007 1:36 AM:

He makes me sick!

mbbsdphil wrote on January 24, 2007 2:27 AM:

Mr. Lieberman is proof that the Stepford Wives do inhabit that perfect community in Connecticut, and that some of their sons become U.S. Senators. Mr. Lieberman, ever wanting to be at the center of things rather than the political center, has become an automoton for Mr. McCain. Perhaps that's the price for another bid at the Vice Presidency. Joe, we hardly knew ya.

merlallen wrote on January 24, 2007 2:49 AM:

This war is so critical that his fighting age son is noway in hell going to enlist. I think Lieberman is more concerned with Israel than he is with Americans.

alan mac wrote on January 24, 2007 7:41 AM:

As a USN 4 year veteran I believe Joe Lieberman is more interested in pleasing his Zionest friends and manipulating events to the benifit of Isreal. What a Schmuck! Hey Joe! How 'bout working for the US for a change. It is our sons and daughters in Iraq who are dying in a war that should never have been waged.
And..... please stop calling yourself a Democrat.

Michelle wrote on February 8, 2007 12:52 AM:

Joe Lieberman is a pathetic opportunist. I can't even begin to count how many times I've seen him squeeze that bobble-head of his into a camera shot so that we could see him schmoozing with the likes of Rumsfeld, and other righties, on the evening news. I wonder what kind of lies he told the Gore people in 2000? Surely the person he is now is not the person he pretended to be in 2000. He lied to the voters, and he lies to himself every time he calls himself an Independent or a Democrat. Joey should come out of the closet and show us all the neocon he really is! I hope the angry voters of Connecticut can find a way to shut down his pathetic show of smoke, mirrors and lies. Please, get the spotlight off this guy.

Sten60007 wrote on April 25, 2007 12:18 AM:

[url=http://fedemelania.miskuzi.info/fr/hotel-dinas-rivisondoli.htm]Dinas Rivisondoli D'Hôtel[/url] * [url=http://fedemelania.miskuzi.info/it/hotel-dinas-rivisondoli.htm]Dinas Rivisondoli Dell'Hotel[/url] * [url=http://fedemelania.miskuzi.info/hotel-dinas-rivisondoli.htm]Hotel dinas rivisondoli[/url] Dinas Rivisondoli D'Hôtel | Dinas Rivisondoli Dell'Hotel | Hotel dinas rivisondoli http://fedemelania.miskuzi.info/fr/hotel-dinas-rivisondoli.htm http://fedemelania.miskuzi.info/it/hotel-dinas-rivisondoli.htm http://fedemelania.miskuzi.info/hotel-dinas-rivisondoli.htm

Sten32189 wrote on April 25, 2007 9:54 AM:

[url=http://cars.zpdos.com/fr/phone-service-in-florida.htm]Service téléphonique En Floride[/url] * [url=http://cars.zpdos.com/it/phone-service-in-florida.htm]Servizio Di Telefono In Florida[/url] * [url=http://cars.zpdos.com/phone-service-in-florida.htm]Phone service in florida[/url] Service téléphonique En Floride | Servizio Di Telefono In Florida | Phone service in florida http://cars.zpdos.com/fr/phone-service-in-florida.htm http://cars.zpdos.com/it/phone-service-in-florida.htm http://cars.zpdos.com/phone-service-in-florida.htm

B G wrote on December 16, 2007 7:44 PM:

CT people need to wake up and recall or impeach Joe Lie Ber Man. He has lied to CT people by saying he will always be a Democrat.