He was able to prove that you do not have to succumb to Bush Derangement Syndrome to be a Democrat or in this case an independent that leans towards Democratic policies.
His loss in his home states primary which led him to run as an independent and win the election from Ned Lamont showed us that he can think for himself, follow his own principles and still get elected without having to walk in lockstep, like a good little robot, with the rest of the Democratic party.
So, we have established that although I disagree frequently with Joseph Lieberman, I have tremendous respect for him.
With that said..... I must be fair and call it like I see it.
I criticized Nancy Pelosi for her ignorant, dangerous visit with Syrian President al-Assad for pushing HER own foreign policy by attempting to step into the role of Diplomat that she was not appointed nor was she voted into.
I criticized Baghdad Reid for his irresponsible words about Iraq that intentionally demoralized our troops and encouraged our enemies.
People have the "right" to free speech, but when elected into power, they also have a responsibility to tamper that right with common sense and understand the damage their words and actions can have, not only politically, but to our troops in the line of fire.
You expect this type of irresponsibility from Reid, Pelosi and people like Ahmad-inejad, but it is highly disappointing to see this type of behavior from someone you believe is principled and educated enough to know better.
I am a firm believer that military options against Iran should not be taken off the table and have often asked when Enough is Enough and how far we will let the little thug from Iran go before we show him that we, as well as the international community, will step in and stop him?
I also believe that a military option must be a last resort and that all diplomatic channels must be tried before seriously considering airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Iran's most recent threats found via Times Online are typical for a man that has often stated he is willing and eager for Armageddon and will try to do anything to get the ball rolling for a showdown.
Iran threatens Gulf blitz if US hits nuclear plants
IRAN has threatened to launch a missile blitz against the Gulf states and plunge the entire Middle East into war if America attacks its nuclear facilities.
Admiral Ali Shamkhani, a senior defence adviser to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned that Gulf states providing the US with military cooperation would be the key targets of a barrage of ballistic missiles.
Shamkhani told the US journal Defense News that missiles would be launched not only at US military bases but also at strategic targets such as oil refineries and power stations.
Qatar, Bahrain and Oman all host important US bases and British forces are based in all three countries. Any Iranian attack would be bound to draw in the other Gulf Cooperation Council states: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.
The attacks on Arab states would be in addition to airstrikes on Israel, which have been threatened repeatedly. An Iranian foreign ministry official said: “The objective would be to overwhelm US missile defence systems with dozens and maybe hundreds of missiles fired simultaneously at specific targets.”
Read the rest...
While the UN (which I believe is useless, but as long as we are part of it, it is worth trying) and America and our allies try to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions diplomatically with sanctions, watered down though they may be, it is up to US and the international community to be the adults here and not say imflamatory things to the press that will hinder our attempts at diplomacy.
I say this, even though I believe those attempts will be fruitless.
We have to try.
Which is where I part with Joe Lieberman, I do not neccessarily disagree with him, I simply believe that as an elected official, some things should be thought but not advertised all over the word as I have pointed out with Baghdad Reid and Pelosi.
Lieberman: Bomb Iran If It Doesn't Stop
Conn. Senator Says The U.S. Should Strike If Tehran Keeps Helping Anti-U.S. Forces In Iraq
(CBS) The United States should launch military strikes against Iran if the government in Tehran does not stop supplying anti-American forces in Iraq, Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday on Face The Nation.
"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 told Bob Schieffer. "And to me, that would include a strike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
The Indepedent former Democrat from Connecticut said that he was not calling for an invasion of Iran, but he did say the U.S. should target specific training camps.
"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," Lieberman said.
Again, I do not disagree with him completely here, I simply believe he has a responsibility to hold such thoughts to himself until we are at a point where our last resort becomes our only option and not inflame the situation more than it already is.
Understand me well here: I do believe that Ahmad-inejad must be stopped and I also believe that whether it is Israel or the US or the international community as a whole, it will come down to military action.
I also believe that as long as we, as a country, are "pretending" that the UN might have a chance in hell of coming up with sanctions that will stop Iran, our elected officials have the responsibility to not publicly hinder those efforts.
The Moderate Voice has a very good question here:
But the question becomes: is this just Lieberman (who is already being lambasted by many on the left for his pro-war and on foreign issues pro-Bush administration stances) giving an opinion off the top of his head? Or is he echoing a viable foreign policy option being discussed in the administration.
There are two reasons to wonder:
(1) Lieberman has strong ties to the administration, particularly to its foreign policy formulators.
(2) The Israel-based website Debka recently reported that Syrian and Iranian generals were talking to each other in preparation for whate they believe will be a U.S. attack. Here are parts of the report:
The regime heads in Tehran are basing their common front with Damascus on intelligence reports whereby the US and Israel have drawn up plans for coordinated military action against Iran, Syria and Hizballah in the summer.
According to this hypothesis, Iranian leaders foresee the next UN Security Council in New York at the end of June or early July ending with an American announcement that the sanctions against Tehran are inadequate because Russia and China has toned them down. Therefore, the military option is the only one left on the table. The ayatollahs have concluded that US president George W. Bush is determined to bow out of office on the high note of a glittering military success against Iran to eclipse his failures in Iraq.
They believe he will not risk the lives of more Americans by mounting a ground operation, but rather unleash a broad missile assault that will wipe out Iran’s nuclear facilities and seriously cripple its economic infrastructure.
According to the Iranian scenario, the timeline for hostilities has already been fixed between Washington and Jerusalem - and so has the plan of action. The US will strike Iran first, after which Israel will use the opportunity to go for Syria, targeting its air force, missile bases and deployments, as well as Hizballah’s missile and weapons stocks which Iran replenished this year.
Viewed within this context, Lieberman’s comment may reflect a feeling that some kind of military strike is likely before Bush leaves office.
We have heard talk like this for years, even before Bush was in office, but because of the strained relationships, the UN's inability to make any difference at all and Iran's rush toward their nuclear ambitions, these are legitimate concerns.
If we follow the same failed policy that we did with North Korea, Iran would have a nuclear bomb by the time we decided this was serious enough to take action, and we know that a nuclear bomb in Iran's hands, will definitely, not probably, but DEFINITELY lead to bombing Israel and then a nuclear war, which will make our being in Iraq seem like a kids game in comparison.
How do we know this is definite and not just probable?
Because we learned from Hitler that when a madman tells the world what he intends to do, HE WILL DO IT and Ahmad-inejad has already announced to anyone that will listen what his intentions are.
Being a Jew myself, I understand the lessons that history should have taught us, so I am certain, beyond any doubt that Ahmad-inejad WILL bomb Israel should they be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Jammie Wearing Fool points out the lefts knee jerk reactions to Lieberman's words which shows the extent of their denial of the reality that is Iran and their intentions.
You can see the lefts freak out over Lieberman's words yourself at memeorandum.
A quick word to Jolting Joe here: You are probably right, you are speaking your mind, I know, but please, please let the this neverending game of pretense we call diplomacy, die its natural death before announcing to the world our final gameplan, because who knows, miracles DO happen and maybe Mahmoud Ahmad-inejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will have a heart attack, or a stroke or simply get killed by their own people and we might not HAVE to strike.
Please? Pretty please?
[update] In the name of fairness since I have given reasons why unless we exit the UN we should wait to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, Shades of Red, White and Blue has a thought provoking look at nuking Iran.
I cannot put myself behind the idea of using nuclear weapons to stop the use of nuclear weapons, nor killing innocent Iranians, but I do not think they are advocating that so much as asking, when will we wake up and realize that harsher actions than useless and toothless sanctions are needed?
Before or after Israel has either been forced to strike Iran either pre-emptively or in retaliation?
Would You Negotiate with Hitler?
How Much Do YOU Know About The Holocaust?