On the February 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, onscreen graphics identified Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman as “Sen. Joe Lieberman: (D) Connecticut,” even though Lieberman himself has reportedly said he prefers to be identified as an “Independent” rather than as a “Democrat.” Blitzer and Lieberman were discussing Lieberman's support for President Bush's position on the war in Iraq and his proposal to raise taxes to fund the fight against terrorism. Lieberman stated that he “thought it was so important that we stop that nonbinding Warner-Levin resolution” because it was “inconsistent, vague, and ultimately meaningless.”

As Media Matters for America documented, on January 12, Congressional Quarterly reported that “Lieberman has asked to be called an Independent Democrat,” and added that, “if the compound modifier that the senator prefers was not going to take hold, then Lieberman's second choice is to be described as an Independent” rather than being described as a “Democrat.”

Blitzer had teased his interview with Lieberman earlier in the program by referring to him as the “very independently minded Senator Joe Lieberman.” After the interview, Blitzer noted that “Joe Lieberman ran as an independent this past election.”

On the January 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Blitzer touted Lieberman's “independen[ce]” in supporting Bush without regard to the will of the Congress, saying: “Joe Lieberman, expressing his independent position, now that he is an independent member of the Senate.”

From the January 5 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BASH: But maybe the most interesting thing today was from Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who simply said that the president shouldn't listen to members of Congress, that he is the commander-in-chief and he should make his decision -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Joe Lieberman, expressing his independent position, now that he is an independent member of the Senate.

From the February 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: He's supporting the president when it comes to the war in Iraq, and he's also calling for a new tax to keep America safe from terror. The very independently minded Senator Joe Lieberman, he's standing by to join us live.

[...]

BLITZER: He's an outspoken backer of the war in Iraq, which may anchor -- anger, certainly has some -- at least some of his Democratic colleagues in the United States Senate. Joining us now from Capitol Hill, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

He's also proposing a special tax now to fund the global war on terror. We're going to get to that, Senator, in a moment, but I'll ask you a question a lot of your constituents and others are asking, presumably. How much longer do you give the president to get it right in Iraq? How much more time realistically do you -- you think he has before even supporters like you start to back you away?

LIEBERMAN: Well, look, the important thing to say here, Wolf, is that how we end Iraq is going to be very important to our security and our progress in the war against the Islamist terrorist who attacked us on 9-11, so I'm supporting this latest plan, the new plan with a new general, a new secretary of defense, 'cause I really do think it has some -- some significant hope of working.

And you know I'm not planning for -- for failure. General Petraeus told us when he was before the Armed Services Committee that he thought, by this summer, we'd have the beginning of a -- of a idea about how -- whether this was working or not. I just -- I'm going to do everything I can to support it and I hope it does work and that we won't have to think about what's next.

BLITZER: So you're -- you're willing to give it at least another six months, maybe a year, or maybe even longer? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

LIEBERMAN: Yeah, no -- I think here's the important point. I want to see progress. I don't think any of us should hold out the hope that we're going to see an -- an end of all violence in Iraq any time soon, but I want to see progress, which means that our forces and the Iraqi forces will make Baghdad more secure so that people can go back to their normal lives and that the government can stand up and take responsibility. That's the key.

In the end, we all know that it's not we Americans who are going to make Iraq a successful state, defending itself, it's the Iraqis. And we're trying to give them some opportunity to do that.

BLITZER: Here's what your Democratic colleague in Connecticut, Chris Dodd, said the other day -- basically saying the White House doesn't care what Congress does. They're going to go it their own way no matter what. Listen to Chris Dodd.

DODD [video clip]: So, despite this resolution that may be -- may pass, the White House has no intention of paying any attention to what we're suggesting here.

BLITZER: Is he right?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I think in the sense that the president has made his decision as commander-in-chief, which the Constitution authorizes him to do, to do what he thinks is best for the security of our country. That's why I thought it was so important that we stop that nonbinding Warner-Levin resolution because it was just an expression of opinion. It -- nobody took responsibility for what was in it. And my fear was that it wouldn't have accomplished anything, but it would have discouraged our troops as they go into battle at the order of their commander, and it would have encouraged our enemy.

To tell you the truth, Chris Dodd has had the nerve to say that he would not just have a meaningless resolution that might discourage our troops. He's prepared to get in there and talk about requiring authorization from Congress for more troops, limiting funding, whatever. That's what ought to happen.

We ought to have a debate here about Iraq, but it ought not to be on the kind of inconsistent, vague, and ultimately meaningless resolution that was coming up earlier this week.

[...]

BLITZER: Coming up, Joe Lieberman ran as an independent this past election. In next year's presidential race, will another independent take on the big two political parties as a third-party candidate?