Joe's team continues:

He had called for Secretary Rumsfeld to be replaced as far back as October of 2003, and he had warned of problems with the Administration’s approach even before the invasion began in a speech at the Council of Foreign Relations.

Sure in October 2003 when Joe was playing for Democratic votes, he called for Rumsfeld's resignation, but once the primaries were over Joe demanded Rumsfeld NOT resign in May 2004:

[I]t 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.

As for Joe's stinging criticism of Bush on February 26, 2003, just weeks before the war, it is not only lame, it is pathetic:

I'm disappointed the administration has taken this long to engage on this part of our policy toward Iraq. But there is still time to do this right, and to seize the opportunity to create in Iraq a model that will best answer Osama bin Laden's incendiary lies about us and create hope, not hatred, throughout the Arab world. To do so will take a clear, comprehensive, and collaborative strategy to win the peace in Iraq—one that applies the lessons of history to build a better future for the Iraqi people and the region.

What a freaking joke Joe. Weeks before the war is when you ask for a plan? That clearly was too late. But even funnier is Joe's suggestions:

Although many details of the Administration's strategy haven't yet been forthcoming, the outlines—according to press reports—appear to be as follows: Our military would exercise control over Iraq until basic security has been established and weapons of mass destruction have been secured. After that, an American civilian administrator would run the civilian government for a period of time to direct reconstruction and humanitarian aid. That administrator would then be responsible for helping transition the nation, over time, into some form of self-rule. If the Administration does in fact intend to name an American civilian administrator to govern Iraq, I feel strongly that would be a mistake. Although American military rule will be required for a short time after hostilities end, it would be an error to continue it longer than it takes to deal with the war's immediate aftershocks. To do so would risk making the peace—and all the risks and costs that go with it—our own, again. It would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator. And it may well widen the gulf between the United States and the Arab world.

That Joe thinks today's Joe is a blithering idiot. But it is obvious why in 2003 Joe said what said - he was running for the Democratic nomination for President. How do I know this? Because in December 2005, when he no longer was running for President, Joe said:

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes, we do. And it's important to make clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still, but has changed over the years.

What a clown Lieberman is. And the lying does not end:

Here is an excerpt from his “Closing Argument” speech to prove this point.

I not only respect your right to disagree or question the President, I value it. I was part of the anti-war movement in the late 1960s, so I don’t need to be lectured by Ned Lamont about the place of dissent in our democracy.



My opponent wants you to believe otherwise, to cement his distortion campaign against me. That’s why they keep repeating and misrepresenting a single comment I made in one speech, in which I said we undermine the President’s credibility at our peril.

I know that statement has been widely misconstrued, so let me address it head on. I did not suggest that the President or anyone else -- including me -- should be immune from criticism. The best proof of that is I myself have challenged the President’s policies on many occasions. The point I was trying to make was about how we disagree.

Bwahahaha. What a joke. And of course Joe immediately proved he was full of crap by questioning the patriotism of Democrats who voted for Lamont in the Connecticut primary, just as Dick Cheney and George Bush had done. Joe Lieberman is simply an unmitigated unprincipled liar.

The funniest of all, Joe's flat out lie on "stay the course":

Most importantly, Joe Lieberman has said on several occasions during the campaign that a “stay the course” strategy was a recipe for more failure in Iraq, and five weeks ago he outlined a substantive 10-point plan for a new approach. So to suggest that he is blithely refusing to acknowledge facts on the ground is just patently false.

For crissakes - you link to the very darn article that proves you did say stay the course over and over again - an article that is deeply embarrassing to the New York Times:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has used the phrase “stay the course” several times in discussing the war in Iraq in recent years, echoing a key phrase of the White House, contrary to an article published Tuesday in The New York Times.

. . . In fact, Mr. Lieberman has used the phrase more than a half-dozen times over the last two years, during a presidential debate and in television interviews — including several instances that were in the Times database. As recently as November 2005, upon returning from a trip to Iraq, for instance, he said on CNN’s “American Morning” that he agreed with the administration’s view that it was necessary to “stay the course.”

“I agree to the extent that we have to stay the course of the policy we chose in overthrowing Saddam and helping the Iraqi people become free, which will really make us a lot more secure and set the terrorists back,” Mr. Lieberman said, adding that some war tactics should change.

Mr. Lieberman used the phrase several times in January 2004 during a presidential primary debate in Iowa. “We have to stay the course in Iraq now,” he said, “and continue to build a stable, modernizing, democratizing country there.”

After losing his party’s primary, in April 2004, Mr. Lieberman said in a televised news conference that he blamed his support for the war in Iraq and his praise of the Bush administration’s policy for his loss.

“I thought the president gave the strongest case that I can remember him giving about why we went in and why we have to stay the course,” he said then. “We’ve got to adopt a strategy of success. A defeat will create chaos in Iraq, chaos in the Middle East, and will embolden the terrorists in a way that will endanger our future and our children’s future.”

Mr. Lieberman also made his support for the president clear in an interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live” in May 2004, saying, “The president’s right.”

“It’s been a lot harder to achieve it than we hoped it would be,” he said of America’s mission in Iraq. “But we’ve got to stay the course and finish the job.”

In July 2004, Mr. Lieberman used the phrase again on Fox News’s “Hannity & Colmes,” saying of the president: “What I’m most happy about is that he said that he will stay the course in Iraq until we finish the job and the Iraqis are in control of their own destiny.”

In recent weeks, Mr. Lieberman has called for different tactics in Iraq.

Joe Lieberman is a bald faced unprincipled liar. And his freakout over the New York Times's endorsement of Lamont demonstrates that he also is not above lying to himself. The man is a disgrace.