June 18, 2007
Lieberman Takes Heat For Iran Warnings
National Review Online: Senator's Warning That Military Action Might Be Needed Triggers Left-Wing Attacks
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Lieberman Warns Iran
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., says the U.S. should bomb Iran if it doesn't stop helping anti-U.S. forces in Iraq.
-
Photo
Sen. Joseph Lieberman has come under fire for suggesting that military action might be needed against Iran. (CBS)
-
Timeline
The U.S. And Iran
Key events in once friendly, now contentious relationship between Washington and Tehran.
-
Timeline
Iran Nuclear Chronology
Events in development of Iran's nuclear program since it first came to light.
When one country trains a force to infiltrate and destabilize its neighbor, it has committed an act of war. And by now, it is hardly a secret that Iran has been funding, arming and training radical factions of the Mahdi army. Still, most American politicians have been reluctant to call Iran's behavior exactly what it is: an act of war against Iraq — and against the United States.
During a "Face the Nation" appearance a week ago, Sen. Joseph Lieberman said: "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq." Lieberman had recently returned from a visit to Iraq, where he discussed Iran's role there with Gen. David Petraeus.
Democrats and their "netroots" predictably worked themselves into a frenzy over Lieberman's comments. The antiwar group Code Pink protested outside Lieberman's office. Harry Reid said, patronizingly, "I know Joe means well," during a teleconference with left-wing bloggers. Reid argued that the way to handle Iran is diplomacy: a meeting among regional heads of state and President Bush.
"Senator Lieberman's saber-rattling does nothing to help dissuade Iran from aiding Shia militias in Iraq," averred Wesley Clark on The Huffington Post. Well, at least he acknowledges Iranian complicity in the killing of Americans and American allies in Iraq. He nonetheless seems more exercised by Lieberman than by the Iranians. Clark concluded: "Only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point." Clark has now begun an online-petition campaign to tout the message, "War is not the Answer — Diplomacy is."
We have already talked directly to the Iranians about their stoking of mayhem in Iraq, and it has availed us nothing. We have subcontracted out to the Europeans talking to them about ending their nuclear program, which has also brought nothing. Too many contemporary fans of "diplomacy" are invoking it with no appreciation for its limits — and no fallback plan when it fails.
Our politics is at an extraordinary pass when a senator who suggests we should be prepared to take military action to protect American troops from hostilities undertaken by a sworn enemy of the United States is roundly denounced. No Republicans have spoken out in Lieberman's defense. Nearly everyone wants to take a "see no evil" posture toward Iran's involvement in Iraq, even though Gen. Petraeus has spoken forthrightly about its murderous handiwork. Lieberman's offense was merely to speak the truth.
In May, Petraeus released evidence showing that Iran had provided the Qazali network, a radical breakaway of the Mahdi army, "with substantial funding, training on Iranian soil, advanced explosive munitions and technologies." Several of these fighters were captured, together with records of an attack they had led on U.S. forces in Karbala that killed five American soldiers. The records were apparently being maintained so the Qazali network could show the fruits of its labors to their benefactors in Iran, particularly the Qods force of the Iranian Republican Guards.
It is sometimes argued that the Iranians responsible for arming our adversaries in Iraq are "rogue elements" of the Revolutionary Guard. But the Revolutionary Guard was founded precisely to take on sensitive missions for the Supreme Leader, since the pro-Shah army was considered unreliable. Indeed, the Supreme Leader appoints the head of the Revolutionary Guard. If he were unhappy with provocative "rogue actions," he could replace him. He hasn’t.
Why would he? Iran won't stop so long as there is no price to its acts of war. The controversy over Lieberman's remark shows how we aren't prepared to make it pay one.
By The Editors of National Review
| America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
Video and Galleries from Opinion
-
Video
Robert McNamara's Life
-
Video
Ginuwine On Jackson
-
Video
Andy Sheds Some Clothes
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 62 CommentsBeing tied down in the Iraq quagmire leaves us without enought forces to have a sustained offense aginist Iran. Unless there is a public supported draft or we decided to go Nuclear there are not enough resources for a major land war with Iran.
Bush does not seem to realize that if you want to wage war and win then you must take the whole nation to war or don't go to war.
Nothing he says resonates with the reality in voters minds.
He has been to too many Republicon Kool-Aid parties!
And he swallowed!
If the above is the criteria, the USA is guilty of war all over the map for the past 25 years - El Salvador(Iran Contra escapade), the Gaza strip, Lebanon, Uganda, the Congo, Sierra Leon, the work of all our economic assins, Iraq war, etc. I wonder why we are so hated? Maybe because we are such hypocrits.
Posted by IMNHO at 01:47 PM : Jun 18, 2007
82% of Americans polled WERE IN FAVOR of the Iraq war. You can't go to war with politicians who change their mind after you're there!
TRY THEM FOR WAR CRIMES!
WE MUST CONFRONT THE ISRAELI LOBBIES AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, AIPAC, PNAC, WEEKLY STANDARD AND THEIR NEOCONS! THEY HAVE HIJACKED OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!
We can still support strong defense for Israel but we must get them from our politics!
To do that we must get past their defense that they had it rough in Europe 70 years ago and the name calling of anti-Semitic they will use when they are confronted!
KNOWLEDGE AND SPEAKING OUT IS OUR BEST HOPE NOW!
WRITE THEM AND TELL THEM WE KNOW AND ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!
THE MIDDLE EAST HAS NOTHING AMERICA NEEDS!
"Gen. William Odom discusses the %u201Cworst strategic disaster in American history,%u201D the war in Iraq: the view of most generals that the war is wrong, the failure of the politicians to see the consequences of their actions, the centrality of the neoconservatives and the Israel lobby in pushing for the Iraq invasion, the %u201Csurge,%u201D
www.antiwar.com/bl
og/2007/
05/10/gen-william-odom
EVEN AS AMERICAN MILITARY AID LANDS IN LEBANON, President Bush is funding Al Qaeda in Lebanon with funds from Iraq!
http://www.newyorker.com/
fact/cont
ent/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh
READ AIPAC BRAG ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE
ON AMERICAN POLITICIANS!
http://www.aipac.org/for
ms/join_aipacClubs.htm
LOL OMG how could the editors not anticipate that their words would be redirected towards them and their support of the Iraq invasion to highlight their hypocrisy.
What's worse, the key word in this 'rule' of engagement is "infiltrate" - proportionality and justification is everything. If Iran was there at the invitation or acceptance of the IRAQI government, then to bomb Iran would be the 'act of war', not the 'retaliation' (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/25/iraq/main2295239.shtml, 4 Iranians in Iraq at the invitation of President Jalal Talibani detained by US troops, 2 released because they had diplomatic immunity; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_attack_on_Iranian_liaison_office_in_Arbil, US claim that 5 Iranians detained in raid are Revolutionary Guard members is rejected by bot Iranian AND IRAQI officials)
Man some of these neocons have to be either stupid or crazy to say the things that they do . . .
I think you have it backwards bud; only the looney left takes the fact that Iran is actively aiming to defeat our goals in Iraq and the Middle East (and further their own strategic goals of regional hegemony and nuclear weapons - great combo for the Central Bank of Terror) through funding/supplying of terrorist elements in Iraq (yes, terrorists, those who torture and kill Sunnis, those who bomb and mortar civilian areas, those who impose Iranian-style Sharia law by force and kill those who don't abide in areas they control) and killing of American troops, and says "just ignore it", who looks at those FACTS and turns the comment around to bash the GOP, Joe Lieberman, and President Bush. Only the looney left...
Are you still smarting from the mental whooping you got the last time you tried to peg the left as the 'loonies'? Scary that you continue to pick fights you can't win . . .
All you done is list characteristics of a country with interests in conflict to our own. Justification aside, how do you believe a bombing of Iran would play out? You've already admitted you supported the invasion of Iraq but that it was a mistake (wasn't it because the invasion designed to decrease the threat of terrorism domestically has actually increased that threat, and that's because more troops were needed and we didn't have enough to do the invasion properly?) . . . now you're supporting an invasion of Iran . . . why should people trust the judgment of somebody who's always getting it wrong?
Sigh, the Lieberman 'Bomb Iran' thread had 82 pages worth of comments that analyzed the suggestion to death . . .
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml?source=search_story#ccmm
My concerns are listed on pages 68, 21, 20 . . . along with everybody else's awesome points on pages 1-82.
So the US has already declared war on Iran. Just like they did on Chile, on Nicaragua, on Cuba, on . . .
I counter with:
Too many contemporary fans of 'war' are invoking it with no appreciation for it's limits - and no fallback plan when it fails.
How about winning one first, any of the current ones will do, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror. Win anything, then maybe the center will consider your blood thirst as something other than pure aggression. If they were truly worried about our troops safety, we wouldn't be in Iraq.
How about the Americans arming Iraqi's? Or those that armed/trained Al-qaeda? We have our own rogue elements to handle first before we have any legitimate rationale for telling another country what they should do.
Dumbest idea I've ever heard, next to invading Iraq!!!!!!!
Posted by cdfoxtrot
Are you kidding? That's democracy in better form; give the people a real choice; they chose him, rather than having to settle for what the MoveOn.org crowd picked for them; who don't even come close to being in the mainstream or a majority of anything!! He didn't ignore the people's wishes, just the Democratic Primary Voters - and you'll see more of that this year; Dems running to those voters now to get 2008 delegates and then paddling back to center as hard as they can for the 2008 general election because MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, Air America, and Code Pink may control the Dem nominating process, but represent only a small fraction of looney lefties.
- posted by SamtheTVcat
NOWHERE, have I ever said invade Iran; in fact numerous postings I have made over the last year have stressed just the OPPOSITE; and how I viewed not talking to our enemies as stupid; see, you'd love to peg me and many others who don't fit the bill as blind Bush supporters - but that's just because it makes it easier for you to spew rhetoric that's unsupported and unsupportable. And you're right, I have said invading Iraq was a bad mistake - but unlike the looney left, I don't believe it was either illegal or some "big lie" to make money for Halliburton (hahahha, that one still makes me laugh). I don't think invading Iran is any smarter; even though Iran is 10x the enemy to our strategic interests Saddam turned out to be; my point, if not cherry-picked to hear what you want to hear of course, is that to cover your ears, close your eyes, and hum, all while pretending Iran isn't committing what could be termed acts of war against us is foolish. Now the reponse to those acts need not be invasion, in fact I'll repeat, SHOULD not be invasion, but to state we won't engage back in ANY limited military acts; pretending like there is some invisible force field separating Iran and Iraq, and thereby allowing them the forward bases and logistics to continue to commit these acts against our troops and goals just because they're over some imaginary line in the sand they don't even pretend to respect; is just insane!!
FYI - So far, all of the Iranian-Americans I have asked, are in favor of nuking their own country! Go figure...
God Bless.
Posted by patriot75 at 05:56 PM : Jun 18, 2007
patriot75,,,
My Iranians friends have been saying the same thing for over 10 years. The problem is the Iranian Government, not the Iranian people. The Iranian people like the West and a way must be figured out how not to alienate people already on your side. The U.S. understands this and I'm sure they are trying to figure out how to deal with the Iranian Government without hurting the Iranians.
"Let us not forget who the enemy of Americans are, and where they reside, and thank pieces of journalistic trash like this for reminding us."
Who are "the enemy of Ameicans" you are talking about?
Duh! *** has the USA been doing in the middle east for the entirety of Bush's reign of terror?
Oh, I forgot, we're the "good guys"; we can do no wrong. At least that's what the repubs and neocons keep telling us.
Lieberman sounds just like McLame(McCain). How about Mr. Lieberman, let's send your sons, daughters
and let's not forget grandchildren over there to "bomb iran". How about let's send YOU over there
too.....YOU IDIOT......
Connecticut for Lieberman Party Chairman John Orman called Tuesday for Sen. Joe Lieberman to resign, saying his advocacy of a military strike against Iran could explode into a global conflict.
%u201CHe has crossed the line,%u201D said Orman, a professor of politics at Fairfield University. %u201CHis unilateral warmongering could lead to a new World War III.%u201D
Posted by MyIDonCBS at 10:23 PM : Jun 18, 2007
Maybe we are headed that way already. Maybe that's what the Middle East needs to settle this c**p once and for all, winner take all.
I stand corrected, you did not say "invade Iran" - what you said precisely with regard to Lieberman's suggestion was:
"we CAN take RESPONSES to their actions against us with little risk at all from the air. To blame Lieberman and name-call him rather than realize he makes a legitimate point: How long are we gonna stand holding our ankles with our pants down regarding Iran before we pull them up, turn around and F&*( them back!!? - that's just stupid!!"
So you DO in fact support a BOMBING of Iran - or am I once again 'putting words in your mouth' or whatever . . .
God Bless.
Posted by patriot75 at 05:56 PM : Jun 18, 2007
That fact that you followed up the phrase promoting the Nuking of a country with "God Bless" pretty much somes up the state of religion in this day and age.
How very christian.
-The actual Iranian regime is not pleasing to America or the west, because of its position against Zionism, (not the Jews). Many times the Iranians have tried to shake hands with Washington through a real and decent relationship, but the rebuttal of Washington because of Political influence by AIPAC has aborted all attempts. Iran deosn't seem to be in a hurry to establish relationships for the sake of relationship with USA. They seem patient until better conditions are set.
-America needs to make a wise and intelligent decision where all interests in the Middle-East be preserved. One sided-vision with Israel is out-dated. The recent events have shown clearly to the world that USA's intersts do not necessarily imply Israel's interests, or vice-versa.
-We are condemning the bilateral relationships with as many as three quarter of the Middle-East population in order to satisfy only the tight Israeli's vision. It doesn't mean we have to sacrifice Israel for a boarder relationship with the Middle-Eastern countries. But a Better, more centered vision should be figured-out in order to embetter our standing in the region. Such an attitude will relax relationship with majority of the world. This may be a dream, I know not possible to make happen under Walking-Liar's and his cronies' legacy. In such, a revolution of visions must be undertaken in the White-House, and on Capitol Hill.
Posted by tbweb
-The problem is one who sits on one side of the fence without seeing the other. Most of the friends you have, tbweb, left Iran at the revolution of Khomeiny, which ended up with the 444 days Americans' hostage-taking. Most probably because Shah's Iran was simply very permeable to Israel interests in the Middle-East. With the revolution, the minority of Iranians that were taking 90% of the advantages provided by the Shah Regime fled to USA and other Western countries, fearing some accountability by the people-supported regime.
-tbweb, if those are your friends, well it's very expectable to hear this from them. True fact, Iranians have little animosity toward others. They have scarcely had any event of desolate incidence on humans, unlike Turks, Russians, Japanese, Indians-Pakistanis, French, Brits (not to mention Israel) or USA, who in a moment or the other in history have been repressive and detrimental toward neighboring nations.
the only way would diplomacy work is both parties are willing to discuss diplomacy..I dont think Iran is willing
Lieberman is one of a dwindling number of fools who still thinks that BUSH%u2019S WAR against Iraq is anything but a DISASTEROUS FAILURE. When the Zionists say %u2018Jump%u2019, Lieberman says, how high? Jew Lieberman is OCCUPIED territory for the Israeli government and he will continue to lobby the US government, military, and taxpayers to do the DIRTY work for Israel. Unfortunately, the voters in Connecticut kept this Bush/Cheney/Israeli lackey in power for another six years
Allegiance: Israel
Reality: Iraq is now part Iran.
Who cares anymore?
You can thank your freind Bush for that. It's a sad thing to see the fruits of your labor be used against you isn't it National Review?
Starting with ISRAEL.
It has little or nothing to do with what most Jews in America believe.
The kind of Zionism that Lieberman supports is, like the kind of 'Christianity' that Bush, the Moonies and the CIA-connected evangelical death cult, centered in Lynchburg, Virginia practice is tailor-made to provide emotional backing for the finance capitalists in their empire building...rather like how Billy Graham was plucked from obscurity by the owner of TIME--Henry Luce-to give a spiritual side to the Capitalist's Cold War.
The wars that Lieberman--another shill for Anglo-American finance--and his ilk support are not wars that are good for America...they benefit only the finance capitalists.
Much respect to Joe, but his theory on military has to be examined. His demand for invasion of Iran has been clearly stated - his reluctance to even talk about bringing the troops home goes exactly as President Bush's desires. The sadness of his unspoken expression shows little sympathy for the "real losers" of the Iraq issue - soldiers and families. Examples of thought fully deny any rebuttal of that by Joe. Attempting to make the public believe whatever the President wishes as "just ok" is also loudly expressed every time the issue arises
Apparently, the President has not taken Joe into the Oval to alarm him of the consequences of the proposed %u201Cair strike%u201D that Israel is ready to deliver. Most express millions of deaths. If George or Joe believes that the Iranian armed forces will simply look skyward to be glorified by the bombs, George and Joe have been sleeping more than they should.
There are consequences for extreme stupidy and arrogance and we are reaping them now and will be for a generation or more regardless of when we move on out of there. Dubya and his band or merry misfits will of course be living high on the hog and have little reason to give a ***.
Somewhere, the rubber meets the road -when will the expressions as GOSPEL finally be unearthed.
The expressions suggest that "free speech" may be abused by those clever enough to escape any worthwhile censorship - and although politicians burst their lungs about other abuses, no one except Senator Lott has expressed his disapproval of the ordeal..
Truth can be dealt with by most professionals but the public is getting the THIS IS GOSPEL treatment undeserved and allowed to be received through ignorance of the REAL TRUTH. Whatever the host determines will create excitement and dismantling of the Democratic arena is the game most played.
Think - power of the %u201Chost%u201D in 2004 election - could it be possible that %u201Ctwo hosts%u201D with their extreme desire to dismantle - won the election for George W Bush. Answer --Very possible.
The litany has gone wild in even a smote of approval of what Joe Lieberman says or stands for. His respect is directed to whomever will comb his locks most bearing opportunity. When OPPORTUNITY presents itself - whatever form- here goes Joe.
His excursion to Iraq was mostly planned for his presentation of an "all is well" approach which will incite the Republicans to say "well done Joe" and Joe goes to another Opportunity.
Joe doesn't believe diplomacy works - apparently the article expresses the same - so he doesn't desire to debate the pros and cons - only the immediate Bush Doctrine - we don't speak with our enemies - who are the enemies? By the way THERE HAS BEEN NO DIPLOMACY since Jan 1 2001.
Even respected diplomats from other countries state GEORGE BUSH DOCTRINE IS MY WAY OR NO WAY. They have grown accustomed to NO DIPLOMACY IN MY OVAL.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 62 Comments