WTF!!! Words cannot express how I feel about Lieberman and the dementia that he must be suffering from.
Lieberman backs "limited" cross border attacks on Iran. What this fool doesn't get is that the middle east is a tinderbox loaded with explosives. A cross border attack could be the spark that ignites a war that could involve our soldiers for generations. George Bush is already preparing us for a "Korean" type of conflict that lasts indefinately in Iraq (though I don't agree with that comparison).
What are the people of Connecticut thinking!!! This just emphasizes how important it is for Democrats to pick up more seats in the Senate. We cannot count on Lieberman.
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just act--ask you about Iran. You brought up Iran. What should we do? Because we continue to hear more and more of just what you're saying. What should the United States do at this point about Iran?Sen. LIEBERMAN: It's very important, Bob, because I didn't just go to Iraq, I went visited throughout the Arab world and Israel. And what you see throughout the Middle East is Iran in battle basically with us and the moderates, supplying the extremists in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas fighting the Fatah faction, our allies among the Palestinians, and, of course, committing terrorists acts against the Israelis. I'm not one to say we shouldn't sit down with the Iranians. I'm glad we did that in Baghdad a while ago. What we did was present them with evidence that we have that I've seen that I believe is incontrovertible that the Iranians are training and equipping the Iraqi extremists to come into Iraq, and they're killing American soldiers and Iraqis. And I think this is a very important moment. If we're going to sit and talk about the Iranians, tell them what we want them to do, which is to stop doing that, because it's killing Americans, we can't leave it at that. I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq. And to me that would include a strike into--over the border into Iran where I--we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.
SCHIEFFER: Well, let's just stop right there, because I think you've probably made some news here, Senator Lieberman. You're saying that, if the--if the Iranians don't let up, that the United States should take military action against them.
Sen. LIEBERMAN: I am, and I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran or--but it--we have good evidence. We've told them, we've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers. Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping for instance their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them. If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force and, to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing now.
SCHIEFFER: Would you go in on the ground, or could you do that from the air?
Sen. LIEBERMAN: I'd leave that to the--to the generals in charge. I think you could probably do a lot of it from the air. But they can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans. It's just--we cannot let them get away with it. If we do, they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part, and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region, and ultimately right here at home.
Feel free to discuss. To me, this sounds a lot like the way Vietnam broadened out into Laos and Cambodia, and I don't like the sound of that at all.
I think it is only a matter of time before he finds a new seat in the Senate on the other side. My guess is that this statement on Iran will cause revolt amongst the party and Lieberman will use that as an excuse. I don't believe Democrats will hold the Senate much longer - until the next election.
To be safe Democrats need to court a Republican and convince one of them to switch sides. Any likely Senator to do that? I'm not sure.
I like Senator Grassley, but there is no indication he would ever switch parties. He is very independent and in my view one of the better watch dogs against government mismanagement. He seems to be rather bipartisan and a policy wonk. With Grassley being an Iowa Republican, it would be a huge political victory for Democrats.
I don't know what his answer would be (probably no) but Senate Democrats need to start thinking in that direction if they wish to retain power. If not Grassley, then whom? There are no "Kucinich's" in the Republican party - but maybe there is a "Jim Webb".
(I think this statement is more proof that Chicken-Hawk Joe has lost his marbles)