He said this last year at the Aspen Institute at an event with John Warner. I posted it then, but I was told he stated his reasons as well. To be honest I was accused of spreading dissension.
His statement still bothers me a lot.
I feel even stronger in light of all that has happened since. His refusal to accept his loss in the primaries, his attacks on the Democrat who won, his obvious tactic of remaining Democrat to keep his chairmanships. I feel even stronger now about it.
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/pp.aspx?c=huLWJeMRKpH&b=1184451&printmode=1
At a time when this nation's partisan divide seems to be ever widening, Senator John Warner (R-VA) and Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) teamed up at a recent installment of the monthly Aspen Roundtable Series in Washington, DC, sponsored by the DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund, to speak out about the critical need for bipartisan policymaking. Both senators offered foreboding predictions for the situation in Iraq if America's political setting continues to be as divided as it is currently. "I anticipate a very stressful situation unless this Government takes strong control in Iraq—120 days from now is when serious stress on where we're going to go will begin to set in," said Warner. "I don't want to see us digging around anymore for who did what in 2003," said Lieberman, stating that continued partisan finger pointing is damaging the public support that is needed to complete the efforts in Iraq and finally bring US troops home.
And at that time last year, he was already pulling the "we can't be partisan" stuff.
"This is a very partisan time in the history of our nation's politics.
have infected our consideration in matters of foreign policy," said Lieberman. "I fear that our national security and national interests are suffering because of it," he continued, adding that change "has to start, ought to start with the President." And, Dear Joe, I don't think the people are as accepting of casualties as you thought they would be. The aversion of the American people to killing innocent civilians is a factor that just did not figure into your think, now did it.
"The American people would be prepared to accept the casualties if they had two things: an understanding of why we're there and an understanding of what the plan is. The President has done a good job in the last month of explaining why we're in Iraq, but we need more about a plan."
And I have said this before, though it seems not to be a popular view...the people who ran the government before Bush 43 knew Saddam was no threat to us, knew the bombing runs had continued, knew that Iraq had been kept in check.
They remained silent or voted for the invasion. Why? I fear the things we have done are going to be burned into the psyches as a nation forever.
Why were they silent? Why do Joe and others not want to find out "who did what in 2003."? I do very much want to know that.