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.
-
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. |
More From Opinion
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 62 CommentsAll here who still point fingers of partisan blame are missing the point, is the bomb red, or blue?
It doesn't matter, folks, when it explodes you will all be red, for an instant.
Best get over the divisions, and stop these sick people, because too late is sooner than you realize...
It has little or nothing to do with what most Jews in America believe."
Posted by Prinzowhales at 09:02 AM : Jun 19, 2007
I always wondered about that - I could see that being totally true . . . like Lieberman, Wolfowitz, are the Bush, Cheney, elites who the rest of us no matter what our faiths think our out of control . . .
What a bunch of losers and abject failures you Repubs are. Go go grow a pair...
Posted by JohnShaft4
Why don't you just go and pledge your allegience to Osama you creep.
Please, do tell: what's the fallback plan for WAR when it fails? Seems to me THAT's the plan we really need!
"Iran won't stop so long as there is no price to its acts of war." Change the first letter 'n' to a 'q' and its deja vu 2002. Some people never learn.
Is that why the majority of Americans voted Democratic in 2006?
ss.org/know
-about-jihad/
Posted by superchez1
Here's something you should all look at. Very, very impressive. Then consider what Lieberman's saying.
Posted by antoniof123
They were fine until people like you came along. Why don't you just go and the danger will be gone.
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.
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.
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 ***.
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.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 62 Comments