<xmp> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\07511782355\46blogName\75ConnecticutBLOG\46publishMode\75PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\46navbarType\75SILVER\46layoutType\75CLASSIC\46searchRoot\75http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\46blogLocale\75en_US\46v\0752\46homepageUrl\75http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\46vt\0752618633873490899171', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Liar?


Did our attorney General lie about the Lieberman website investigation?

Read ConnecticutBob's post (AND VIDEO) and be the judge.

Joe Lieberman: Worse person in the world

Well deserved.

You can't make this up folks...


The head of Immigration Customs Enforcement trying to cover up the fact that she's an idiot.

A Republican Congressman having a Geraldo moment.

Bushies running up credit charges...at the taxpayer's expense.

As Keith Olbermann explains, it's just another day for the Bush administration.

A tale of two senators (or fantasy versus reality)

Junior.

Senior.

Junior should learn a thing or two from senior.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Where's the follow-up story from the media?

Since the mainstream media was all over the Lieberman website non-story back in August 2006, you'd think they'd do the right thing and set the record straight regarding WHO WAS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SITE CRASHING.

Remember Chris Matthews interview with Ned Lamont? Will Tweety be doing a follow-up today?

How about the NYTimes piece that glosses over the FACT that Lieberman paid for a cheap web hosting service, which the "pesky" bloggers figured out before lunchtime on primary day.

How about CNN's the Situation Room...will they be doing a follow-up?

Hartford Courant?

New Haven Register?

WTNH's Mark Davis?

How interesting that OUT OF EVERYONE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, only Brian Lockhart of the Stamford Advocate was courageous enough to stick with the story, do his homework, filed a FOIA request, and exposed what us bloggers said NEARLY TWO YEARS AGO.
A federal investigation has concluded that U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's 2006 re-election campaign was to blame for the crash of its Web site the day before Connecticut's heated Aug. 8 Democratic primary.

[...]

According to the FBI memo, the site crashed because Lieberman officials continually exceeded a configured limit of 100 e-mails per hour the night before the primary.

"The system administrator misinterpreted the root cause," the memo stated. "The system administrator finally declared the server was being attacked and the Lieberman campaign accused the Ned Lamont campaign. The news reported this on Aug. 8, 2006, causing additional Web traffic to visit the site.

"The additional Web traffic then overwhelmed the Web server. . . . Web traffic pattern analysis reports and Web logging that was available did not demonstrate traffic that was indicative of a denial of service attack."
100 emails per hour for a senatorial campaign=cheap web hosting service.

I'll see if the media picks up on this story tonight but I'm not holding my breath.

Memories

cross post from My Left Nutmeg
Now that we know the details, let's take a trip back and revisit the accusations the Lieberman campaign made regarding the "hacking" of their site?
Officials with U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's re-election campaign blamed "dirty politics" and "Rovian tactics" for what they said was an online attack on their Web site as Connecticut voters headed to the polls Tuesday.

The former Democratic vice presidential candidate is in a tight race for his party's nomination for a fourth term to the Senate.

"Rovian" is a reference to White House aide and presidential political adviser Karl Rove, whom Democrats frequently have accused of unethical campaign tactics.

The Web site, http://www.joe2006.com, has been unavailable since Monday afternoon. Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith suggested that the campaign of the senator's primary opponent, Ned Lamont, or his supporters were responsible for the disruption.

"This type of dirty politics has been a staple of the Lamont campaign from the beginning, from the nonstop personal attacks to the intimidation tactics and offensive displays to these coordinated efforts to disable our Web site,"
said Smith in a statement e-mailed to reporters Monday evening.

"There is no place for these Rovian tactics in Democratic politics, and we demand that our opponent call off his supporters and their online attack dogs."
And who could forget this money quote from then Lieberman adviser, the infamous DANGERstein.
The senator’s aides blamed the shutdown on liberal bloggers and other opponents. “They hate Bush but they use the same tactics as the Bush campaign,” said Dan Gerstein, a Lieberman adviser, referring to the bloggers.

Now of course, back in August of 2006, we all knew that Lieberman's claim that his website was hacked by the Lamont campaign and "those pesky bloggers" was pure bullshit. And since the Lieberman campaign was pathetically incompetent, it wasn't hard to expose their lies.



As Drowsy noted, after nearly two years, the Stamford Advocate's FOIA request into the Lieberman matter was answered and we finally have the details on what really happened.

A federal investigation has concluded that U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's 2006 re-election campaign was to blame for the crash of its Web site the day before Connecticut's heated Aug. 8 Democratic primary.

The FBI office in New Haven found no evidence supporting the Lieberman campaign's allegations that supporters of primary challenger Ned Lamont of Greenwich were to blame for the Web site crash.

Lieberman, who was fighting for his political life against the anti-Iraq war candidate Lamont, implied that joe2006.com was hacked by Lamont supporters.

"The server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured. There was no evidence of (an) attack," according to the e-mail.

A program that could have detected a legitimate attack was improperly configured, the e-mail states.

[...]

According to the FBI memo, the site crashed because Lieberman officials continually exceeded a configured limit of 100 e-mails per hour the night before the primary.

"The system administrator misinterpreted the root cause," the memo stated. "The system administrator finally declared the server was being attacked and the Lieberman campaign accused the Ned Lamont campaign. The news reported this on Aug. 8, 2006, causing additional Web traffic to visit the site.

"The additional Web traffic then overwhelmed the Web server. . . . Web traffic pattern analysis reports and Web logging that was available did not demonstrate traffic that was indicative of a denial of service attack."
SURPRISE SURPRISE, Lieberman's campaign was responsible for the entire matter. WOW, I'm shocked!

I guess that's what you get when you pay 15 dollars a month for a web hosting services.

Although it's great that this BIG FAT LIE from Team Joementum is finally put to rest, when will we get to the bottom of how Lieberman's campaign was able to dish out 387,000 dollars COLD HARD "PETTY" CASH in the 12 days preceding the primary.

Monday, April 07, 2008

No more Joementum for Lieberman


Since Joe Lieberman went back on his promise to help the Democrats take back the White House in 2008, and given his recent statements about the Democratic Party in general, Daily Kos hired independent pollster Research 2000 to get a sense of how voters (including those "stick with Joe" Democrats) in Connecticut feel about the junior senator.

Lets just say that the poll produced some interesting results, which you can read by clicking here.