Skip to main content

View Diary: It's official: Lieberman and Co. lied about "hacking" (250 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd like to retire the word "lie" from politics (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Capybara, rtfm

    Too many people who use the word seem to have no idea what it means. They hear something they disagree with and they call the speaker a "liar" or the statemetn a "lie." The statement may even be demonstrably incorrect -- or proven wrong later -- but, that doesn't make the statement a lie, or the speaker a liar. THere is huge chasm between saying something that is not accurate or "untrue," and saying something that is a lie. While a lie is the opposite of truth, "untrue" and "lie" are not exactly synonomous.

    Isn't it possible-- hell, forget "possible" -- isn't it likely that Lieberman staffers were freaking -- in an absolute state of panic over the taking down of the site, and they came to the conclusion that it was the result of hacking? Certainly, no one in the Lieberman campaign suggested they had evidence that the site had been taken down by hackers. They were going by process of elimination and the explanation most likely, given the timing -- I'm sure they didn't lok very deeply into the matter before they started claiming "foul play," but that's a natural reaction.

    I believe I'm correct in saying the Lieberman folks never claimed they had evidence. It's a stretch to say the conclusion that there is no evidence of hacking means they lied when the claimed foul play. It just means they were wrong.

    "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

    by FischFry on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 12:49:53 PM PST

    •  ever feel like your screaming in a hurricane? (0+ / 0-)
      Markos is wrong -- it is not official that Lieberman lied.

      But hey, it sounds good.

      Hello!

      "Which is more musical: a truck passing by a factory or a truck passing by a music school?" --John Cage

      by rtfm on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:11:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lamont was exonerated! Yea! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Red Tulips

        That's the news there. The biggest lie is the suggestion that Lieberman's folks were lying -- that they knew it to be untrue. But wait, it's not a lie to say they were lying, if one doesn't know for a fact they weren't lying....See, where this leadss. I'm not accusing kos of lying -- just that he is making accusations for which he has no evidence. There's a big difference....And, it's why one should be careful about the distinction between saying someone is wrong and saying they're lying....One may be easily demonstrable while the other may be verging on slander or libel.

        "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

        by FischFry on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:45:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Same excuse Bush uses, right? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AshleyinUT

          Thats the same excuse Bush uses about the weapons of mass destruction: that he believed it.  Its going to be impossible to hold public officials accountable if you let them off with that kind of dodge.  What would stop them from saying any self-serving thing they want to say?  They can just claim to have believed it.  

          •  Hold accountable in what way? (0+ / 0-)

            For instance, if you want to nail them for perjury, you do have to prove they knew it was untrue. If you want to show they were stupid and should be voted out of power, you just need to show that it was untrue. Witness the election last month....

            "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

            by FischFry on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:19:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Politically accountable (0+ / 0-)

              Make them squirm.  Its not all about criminal prosecution.  If Lieberman doesn't get questioned about this directly, having made statements about it himself, personally, not just through staff, the reporters will be trying to help him by deep-sixing an embarassment.  

              •  That's my point -- political accountablity (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Red Tulips

                This can be done without baselessly calling others liars. It's enough that they used horrible judgment, that they manipulated evidence to support conclusions that they might have firmly believed but could not prove fairly.

                "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

                by FischFry on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 07:27:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Liebermans Team Repeated Falsehood (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rabel, theark

      Your argument could be considered reasonable but for Lieberman's team's multiple claims that Lamont had hacked his website.  I could understand a Lieberman hireling's making this statemnet immediately upon the site's crash.  Within the first 24 hours after Lieberman's site crashed, they made the same claim repeatedly - without one shred of evidence.

      The first time such an irresponsible slander is made, it's understandable.  The second time the slander is released, it's a mistake.  The third time, it's a deliberate lie.  That's the difference between what you suggest and what actually happened.

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:16:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it doesn't become lying unless (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Red Tulips

        They knew it to be false. One can say the same thing more than 3 times within 24 hours, and still believe it to be true. That's a pretty short period of time to learn that it was not true.

        "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

        by FischFry on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:42:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Even When They Don't Know? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Maura in VA

          Yes, it does become lying when they know they can't even begin to prove that their opponent had any involvement with it and make absolutely, dead certain statements that their opponents caused the problem.  Lieberman's people didn't say that maybe Lamont's team was responsible.  They said Lamont's team WAS responsible.  They said it over and over and over again, with absolutely no proof to present.

          Don't think for a second that this wasn't done deliberately.  Lieberman's pack of pond scum immediately claimed that Lamont had run a negative, nasty and illegal campaign within minutes of their learning that Lieberman lost the primary.  This charge was intended to set up Lieberman's general election campaign.

          No, Lieberman's people knew they were lying about the charges, because they knew that Lieberman was going to go back on his word and run in the general election.  They had motive, means and method all down pat.  That's what proves they were lying.

          "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

          by PrahaPartizan on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 08:05:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're misrepresenting what Joe L. said (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Red Tulips

            Does that mean you're lying? To be clear, the campaign blamed Lamont's supporters in the hacking community. They called on Lamont to urge his supporters to stop their hack attack. Not the same thing as blaming Lamont's campaign for the alleged hack. So, since you have misrepresented what the Lieberman campaign did say, does that make you a liar?

            "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

            by FischFry on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 08:56:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  What a cop out (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CTPatriot

          A person can launch a baseless accusation against another person without any evidence whatsoever, but in your mind that is not a lie unless there is evidence that it is not a lie?

          Okay, here's one for you:

          Joe Lieberman broke into my bedroom last night while I was sleeping and stared at me for an hour before leaving quietly without waking anyone in the house.

          I don't know that that's not true.  It could have happened.  Therefore, by saying it, I am not lying, since don't know for sure that it is false.

          It's ridiculous.  The Lieberman campaign knowingly accused Lamont and his supporters of hacking their web site with no evidence whatsoever.  They aggressively shopped this story to all reporters and media outlets in the final 24 hours of the primary election.  Even in Lieberman's ungracious speech in which he announced his refusal to accept the results of the Democratic primary, he continue to make reference to his site being hacked.

          They lied.  And Joe Lieberman should personally apologize for his lies and for smearing not only Ned Lamont but all of his online supporters.

          aka "Maura in CT", since I'm back now in the Nutmeg State, where I grew up...

          by Maura in VA on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 08:29:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Firstly, you distort (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Red Tulips

            The Lieberman campaign jumped the gun to be sure, but they did not accuse Lamont personally -- as I recall the charge was that supporters in the hacking community (whatever that is) were responsible.

            Second, I didn't say that a lie isn't a lie unless there is evidence that it is a lie. I said it's a baseless accusation to accuse folks of lying without any real indication that they deliberately decieved. So, you're flippping the logic of my argument on its head. Yes, they were wrong to accuse Lamont campaign SUPPORTERS, without evidence to support that anything untoward had even happened. That was a baseless accusation. That doesn't make it a lie -- any more than Markos lied when he baselessly accused the Lieberman campaign of lying -- that is to say, he leveled a charge without any evidence to support the notion that the Lieberman campaign did know better. I"m not saying he's lying in his belief that they did -- but, it's quite a leap -- really just as big a leap as teh Liebrman people made.

            You claim that I was saying it's not a lie unless there's evidence that it's a lie -- that completely distorts what I said -- beyond recognition. A lie is a lie, whether one can prove it's a lie -- it's from the prespective of the talebearer. If he/she knows it's untrue, then it's a lie. What I said was don't accuse people of lying when you have no real reason to believe they are lying, beyond your own bias. People may misspeak, but that doesn't make them liars. That's all I said.

            "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

            by FischFry on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 08:53:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let's look at some facts (0+ / 0-)

              Here is one press release that the Lieberman campaign sent about the alleged hack attack (emphasis mine):

              FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
              August 8, 2006
              www.joe2006.com
              Contact: Marion Steinfels
              (860)244-2006
              Email: marion@joe2006.com

              UPDATE ON THE ATTACK ON THE LIEBERMAN CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

              STATEMENT FROM SEAN SMITH:

              "For the past 24 hours the Friends for Joe Lieberman’s website and email has been totally disrupted and disabled, we believe that this is the result of a coordinated attack by our political opponents. The campaign has notified the US Attorney and the Connecticut Chief State's Attorney and the campaign will be filing a formal complaint reflecting our concerns. The campaign has also notified the State Attorney General Dick Blumenthal for his review."

              "We call on Ned Lamont to make an unqualified statement denouncing this kind of dirty campaign trick and to demand whoever is responsible to cease and desist immediately. Any attempt to suppress voter participation and undermine the voting process on Election Day is deplorable and has no place in our democracy."

              Why would they call on Ned Lamont to denounce something they are not accusing him of being responsible for?

              In interviews, Sean Smith made clear that he considere Ned Lamont himself to be responsible for the alleged damage to his site and to voters because, in his opinion, Ned had not sufficiently "denounced" the alleged hacking.

              "If Ned Lamont has a backbone in his body, he will call on these people to cease and desist," Smith said.

              Another choice quote from Smith on Hardball:

              SMITH:  Yeah, that's right because voters in Connecticut are going to reject this kind of politics and if Ned Lamont and his supporters and the opponents of our campaign won't stop this, the voters of Connecticut will by their actions and by turning out to the polls tonight.

              and further:

              MATTHEWS:  So when they go to your Web site right now your supporters and find that it's not operative, when they hope to get an email from you or send an email from you and they can't send it, that's the fault of Ned Lamont because he won't stop this sabotage.  Is that your point?

              MATTHEWS: It's the fault of somebody, that's why we've asked for an investigation--

              MATTHEWS: but you won't get the results of any investigation TODAY, so what's good is---I'm asking about today, between now and when people vote today, should they be thinking that Ned Lamont has been guilty, at least, of not calling off the dogs?  What do you want them to think about Ned Lamont between now and election time tonight?

              SMITH:  Heh heh heh.  Well, I think they should be very troubled---

              MATTHEWS:  On this point, on this point--

              SMITH:  I think they should be troubled by Ned Lamont's refusal to stand up and ask for accountability and ask for everyone in Connecticut to have the right to vote.  He should show some leadership---

              MATTHEWS:  Okay, so you hold him responsible for not--so basically to put words in your mouth, he won't call off the dogs.

              SMITH:  He won't call off the dogs and if he wants to be a United States Senator he should show some leadership, he should show some backbone, we haven't seen much of that from him in this campaign at all.  Today presents an opportunity for him.  I don't think he's going to take it.

              No one has ever claimed (to my knowledge) that Joe Lieberman accused Ned of personally being a hacker himself.  But it is very clear that the Lieberman campaign deliberately shopped the story that Ned Lamont was responsible for their site being down, both because he was supported by people online (apparently we all are hackers) and because he controlled those alleged hackers and did not tell them to stop doing what they were doing.

              aka "Maura in CT", since I'm back now in the Nutmeg State, where I grew up...

              by Maura in VA on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 03:20:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The suggestion wasn't that he controlled them (0+ / 0-)

                The suggestion was that he should denounce the alleged attack on the website. If there had been an attack, Lamont should most certainly have denounced it. Because it would be the right thing to do -- and because whoever might have been responsible might take steps to remedy their action. It wasn't that supposed hackers were under Lamont's control, but that they might respond to him, if he called on them to desist -- because they were "supporters of Lamont" or "political opponents" of Lieberman campaign. And no one suggested we're all hackers, just that one hacker was out there. You can't really be so thick that you can't see that? Do I really need to explain that to you?

                Now, I've had my last say on this topic...at least, in this lifetime.

                "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

                by FischFry on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 12:27:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Lie: a statement that deviates from or perverts (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zeke L, rabel, CTPatriot

      the truth.

      Some definitions include that the deception is deliberate, others do not. In any case, there was no evidence to support the accusation against Lamont. Even on the day of the primary, within 1-2 hours, a number of bloggers had figured out that there was no DOS attack and that the likely cause was the total inadequacy of Lieberman's website. So, yes, to make the initial accusation was a ?perhaps nondeliberate lie, and to continue making the accusation after evidence was available showing otherwise, was a lie by any definition.

      •  I was half-wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Red Tulips

        It's true that you can use the word lie in certain senses that would not imply intentional deception or distortion. One can say that something "puts the lie to" a false claim. So, I will concede that "a lie" is not necessarilty a deliberate untruth." However, to call someone a liar, or to say that someone is lying -- to use the word as a verb ("to lie") -- these uses clearly imply intentional distortion of the truth. They are inappropriately inflammatory when the speaker may be merely unknwingly mistaken.

        "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

        by FischFry on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:39:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  see above. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lois, CTPatriot

          the initial "false claim" was followed by several hours of repetition, even after it was clear it was untrue. That's a lie by any definition.

          •  Clear to whom? (0+ / 0-)

            If it were so damn clear, the A-G wouldn't have bothered to investigate.

            "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

            by FischFry on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:47:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  clear to anyone who knew anything about computers (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CTPatriot

              which presumably included at least someone on Lieberman's staff, who presumably was providing real time reports about the snafu. In any case, as you surely remember, they had a statement up on the website blaming Lamont. Whoever put up the statement knew the website wasn't down due to a DOS or other hostile attack. So, LIE remains the correct word, no matter how much you want to weasel out of it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site