Lieberman & The Military Target Iran While Democrats Dither

The Democrats, led by Harry Reid, let us all know once again why they cannot be trusted with our national security or the conduct of a war. On Sunday, Joe Lieberman, called for military strikes against Iran in response to the acts of war being daily committed by Iran against the US:

. . . "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."

. . . If the U.S. does not act against Iran, "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," Lieberman said.

. . . "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," Lieberman said. "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."

Read the entire story here. Joe Lieberman is spot on in his assessment (see here and here), But Harry Reid responded, once again embracing peace at all costs before the '08 election. He would give Iran a free pass to continue engaging in acts that kill our soldiers and destabilize Iraq, calling for diplomacy and a regional conference because "[t]he invasion of [Iran] is only going to destabilize that part of the world more." Perhaps Mr. Reid has forgotten that the precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that he proposes for partisan political gain will be the single greatest destabilizing act in the Middle East imaginable.

UPDATE: Bill Rogio writes that the Army now has proof beyond any reasonable doubt of Iran's complicity in the Karbala raid that ended in the death of five U.S. soldiers. Satelite photos show the Iran built a mock up of the target area in a city where they have been training Iraqi militants.

Meanwhile, the left are beginning to realize that, one, their Presidential candidates are going to be attacked on a daily basis for their incredible weakness on issues relating to national security and terrorism, and two, that these candidates have very little in the way of substantive response to the charges. The WSJ has the story of the left's conundrum here.

And on a final note, the Jerusalem Post is reporting that the U.S. military has drawn up its plans for a strike on Iran in response to their continuing quest for nuclear weapons:

Predicting that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon within three years and claiming to have a strike plan in place, senior American military officers have told The Jerusalem Post they support President George W. Bush's stance to do everything necessary to stop the Islamic Republic's race for nuclear power.

. . . A high-ranking American military officer told the Post that senior officers in the US armed forces had thrown their support behind Bush and believed that additional steps needed to be taken to stop Iran.

Predictions within the US military are that Bush will do what is needed to stop Teheran before he leaves office in 2009, including possibly launching a military strike against its nuclear facilities.

. . . According to a high-ranking American military officer, the US Navy and Air Force would play the primary roles in any military action taken against Iran. One idea under consideration is a naval blockade designed to cut off Iran's oil exports.

The officer said that if the US government or the UN Security Council decided on this course of action, the US Navy would most probably not block the Strait of Hormuz - a step that would definitely draw an Iranian military response - but would patrol farther out and turn away tankers on their way to load oil.

. . . The US officer said that perhaps even more dangerous to Israel and the Western world than Iranian nukes was the possibility that a terrorists cell associated with al-Qaida or global jihad would acquire a highly radioactive "dirty bomb" or a vial of deadly chemical or biological agents. The officer said al-Qaida was gaining a strong foothold in the Middle East and that Israel was being surrounded by global jihad elements in Lebanon, Jordan and Sinai.

"Iran is a state-sponsored type of terrorism that can be dealt with," he said, adding that it was far more difficult to strike at the source of an isolated terrorist cell. . . .

Read the entire article here. Let us hope this article is accurate. It is difficult to imagine anything more dangerous to the world then a nuclear armed Iran.

Read More...

Summary only...

Lieberman Slams All Sides of the Senate On Iraq

Senator Joe Lieberman has posted his remarks at a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He continues to be possibly the only eloquent defender of remaining in Iraq in either party. And he has appropriate words of both warning and criticism for the Democratic presidential hopefuls who would abandon Iraq to gain the Presidency and the moderate Republicans who are are dispensing with their principles as they look towards the polls:

. . . Now, I know there are some who are probably wondering—what is a nice Independent Democrat from Connecticut doing at a Republican event like this?

Well, a funny thing happened on the way to reelection last year... And as Rabbi Hillel said, the rest is commentary.

In all seriousness, many of you in this room stood with me last year through the long journey up a winding road that was my 2006 reelection campaign. You came to my side without regard for party affiliation, and you stayed there even after I ran as an Independent but said I would caucus with the Democrats. Your non-partisanship in my race is a model for what our politics should be. I thank you personally and deeply for it. I could not have won without it. And I pledge to you that I will do everything I can to vindicate your confidence.

We gather at a critical time for the future of our country. The war in Iraq has now become the defining issue for this Congress and for this presidency—although the decisions we will make in the weeks and months ahead about Iraq will have consequences that reach far beyond the terms of anyone now in office.

Part of the disagreement we face over Iraq comes down to a genuine difference of opinion.

On the one hand, there are those who believe, as I do, that the struggle against Islamist extremism really is the central challenge of our time, and that, as General David Petraeus—our commander in Iraq—recently said, Iraq is now the central front of the war against Islamist extremism.

On the other hand, there are those who reject this view—who genuinely believe that the threat of Islamist extremism is overstated, or that Iraq is a distraction from the "real" war on terror, or that the war there is lost, or not worth fighting to win.

It is my deeply held conviction that these people are not only wrong, they are disastrously wrong—and that the withdrawal they demand would be a moral and security catastrophe for the United States, for Iraq, and for the entire Middle East, including Israel and our moderate Arab allies.

Let there be no doubt—an American defeat in Iraq would be a victory for Al Qaeda and Iran... the two most threatening enemies we face in the world today. It would vindicate the hope of our enemies that America is weak and that we can be driven to retreat by terrorism, and it would confirm the fear of our friends—not only in Iraq, but throughout the world—that we are unreliable allies who will abandon them in the face of danger.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot claim to be tough on terrorism while demanding that our military withdraw from Iraq, because it is the terrorists—particular Al Qaeda—that our military is fighting in Iraq.

You cannot claim to be committed to defeating Al Qaeda, while demanding that we abandon the heart of the Middle East to Al Qaeda.

And you cannot claim to be tough on Iran, while demanding the very thing that the mullahs want most of all—the retreat of the American military from the Middle East in defeat, leaving a vacuum that Iran will rush to fill.

I recognize that this war has been controversial, and there are those who oppose it on principle. I respect that.

But too much of the debate we are having today about withdrawal from Iraq has little or nothing to do with principle, or with reality in Iraq.

It is about politics and partisanship here in Washington.

For many Democrats, if President Bush is for it, they must be against it. If the war is going badly, it is bad for Republicans and it is good for Democrats. It is as simple as that, and it is as wrong as that.

For many Republicans, the unpopularity of this war and this President has begun to shake their will. They say that they have no choice but to abandon General Petraeus and his strategy because the American people tell the pollsters they want out. If previous generations of American leaders had allowed their conduct of war to be shaped by partisanship or public opinion polls, we would not be the strong and free nation we are blessed to be today.

Republicans in Congress delude themselves if they think they will be helping either themselves, their party, or their country if they now attempt to wash their hands of Iraq, out of a sudden sense of political anxiety.

Democrats in Congress delude themselves if they think they will not be held accountable for the bloody consequences of the retreat from Iraq they seek.

The fact is, a loss to Al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq would be devastating to our security. These are fateful days and critical decisions we are making about Iraq. We must make them with our eye on the safety of America's next generation, not the outcome of America's next election.

It is to the everlasting credit of President Bush that in the war against Islamist extremism he has shown the courage and steadfastness to stand against the political passions of the moment.

I have never hesitated to express disagreement with the President on any issue when I felt he was wrong—and I have criticized his administration many times for the serious mistakes I believe it made in prosecuting the war in Iraq.

But let me tell you this: I believe that each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not believe that decisions about war should be driven by poll numbers. And each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not confuse what is popular with what is right for our security as a nation. The public opinion polls may not reflect this today, but I believe history will tomorrow.

My friends, as Ronald Reagan once said, now is the time for choosing.

If we stand united through the months ahead, if we stand firm against the terrorists who want to drive us to retreat, the war in Iraq can be won and the lives of millions of people can be saved.

But if we surrender to the barbarism of suicide bombers and abandon the heart of the Middle East to fanatics and killers, to Al Qaeda and Iran, then all that our men and women in uniform have fought, and died for, will be lost, and we will be left a much less secure and free nation.

That is the choice we in Washington will make this summer and this fall. It is a choice not just about our foreign policy and our national security and our interests in the Middle East. It is about what our political leaders in both parties are prepared to stand for. It is about our very soul as a nation. It is about who we are, and who we want to be.

Will this be the moment in history when America gives up—when Al Qaeda breaks our will, when our enemies surge forward, when we turn our backs on our friends and begin a long retreat from our principles and promise as a nation?

Or will this be the moment when America steps forward, when we pull together, when we hold fast to the courage of our convictions, when—with a new strategy, and a new commander on the ground—we begin to turn the tide toward victory in this long and difficult war?

I know that we can rise above the anger and smallness of our politics. I know we can rise to the greatness that this moment demands of us.

The question is—will we choose to do so?

I would like to close today by sharing with you a story from my last visit to Iraq a few months ago. It was in Anbar province in western Iraq—the center of the insurgency—a part of the country that conventional wisdom last year dismissed as hopeless.

In fact, on September 11, 2006, the Washington Post ran a front-page story reporting that even the chief of Marine Corps intelligence in Iraq had concluded that Anbar was "lost," and our position there was "beyond repair."

I was in Anbar last December, on a forward operating base just outside Ramadi, the capital of the province. As one of the briefings with our military commanders ended, a colonel who had been sitting in the back of the room came up to me. He said something that I carry with me to this day—something that I hope you will carry with you as well.

He said: "Sir, I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here, we want to finish this fight. And we know we can win it."

Today, five months later, Anbar has been dramatically transformed. Thanks to the bravery, ingenuity, and commitment of our men and women in uniform, shops and schools have reopened, Al Qaeda is on the run, thousands of Iraqis have joined the local police, and—yes—no less than the New York Times reports that we have turned the corner there.

My friends, now is not the time for despair. Now is the time for resolve.

Now is not the time for reflexive partisanship and pandering to public opinion. Now is the time for the kind of patriotism and principle America's voters have always honored.

I ask you to plead with every member of Congress you can in the days and weeks ahead—

Do not surrender to hopelessness.

Do not succumb to defeat.

Do not give in to fear.

Rise above the political pressures of the moment to do what is right for America.

Believe, like that colonel, in why we are fighting in Iraq, and know, as he and his soldiers know, that we can and must win there."

This is from Lieberman's website. It is just one more in a string of excellent speeches by Lieberman on the Iraq issue. But I think we all need to e-mail Senator Lieberman and remind him that he holds the key to shutting down Harry Reid and Chuckie Schumer today.

(H/T Steve Halter)

Read More...

Summary only...

Joe Lieberman Responds to Harry Reid

Senator Joe Lieberman, eloquent as always, responds to Harry Reid's craven and opportunistic claims claims that the Iraq war is "lost" and the surge is "failed" because of al Qaeda suicide bombings in Baghdad.

Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."

And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.

This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there.

. . . In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis -- particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.

This progress is real, but it is still preliminary.

The suicide bombings we see now in Iraq are an attempt to reverse these gains: a deliberate, calculated counteroffensive led foremost by al-Qaeda, the same network of Islamist extremists that perpetrated catastrophic attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey and, yes, New York and Washington.

Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.

Al-Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.

In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaeda is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery.

That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq's "civil war" is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.

. . . When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

Even as the American political center falters, the Iraqi political center is holding. In the aftermath of last week's attacks, there were no large-scale reprisals by Shiite militias -- as undoubtedly would have occurred last year. Despite the violence, Iraq's leadership continues to make slow but visible progress toward compromise and reconciliation.

But if tomorrow Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds were to achieve the "political solution" we all hope for, the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq would not vanish.

Al-Qaeda, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it.

Certainly al-Qaeda can be weakened by isolating it politically. But even after the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree on a shared political vision, there will remain a hardened core of extremists who are dedicated to destroying that vision through horrific violence. These forces cannot be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. They must be defeated.

The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight.

To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.

Read the entire article here. It is a very reasoned response. But I wonder if it is keeping Senator Lieberman awake at night knowing that he can put an end to this Democratic opportunism by merely moving his chair across the aisle? You know it has to be eating at him.

Update: Here is an article from Hugh Hewitt asking when Lieberman will join the Republicans. And here is Lieberman's floor speech. It is actually bettern then the article he authored.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senator Lieberman On Iraq

Senator Joe Lieberman has issued a press release of his remarks made yesterday at a speech before AIPAC. Once again, Senator Lieberman hits precisely the right notes:

Increasingly, the debate over our foreign policy is becoming so polarized, so partisan, so bound up in the battles we are having here in Washington, that it seems blind to the real battle outside of America, the challenge of our time from the Islamist extremists who want to destroy us all, who attacked America on September 11, 2001, and intend to do so again.

. . . .
Given all the mistakes made in Iraq, all of the setbacks and disappointments, I understand how well-intentioned people have come to disagree about the war. . .
But I continue to believe that a withdrawal from Iraq, as many are now urging, would be a victory for Iran and Al Qaeda and the cause of Islamist extremism, and a catastrophic defeat for the United States and all who desire peace and security and freedom in the Middle East and here at home.

We are now implementing a new plan for success in Iraq, with new troops under a new commander. That is why I have called for a six-month truce in the political wars in Washington to give that new plan, those new troops, and that new commander a chance to succeed. And I call on all who care about security and peace in the Middle East, and security from terrorism here at home, to do the same.
. . . .
There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism. There is something profoundly wrong when there is so much distrust of our intelligence community that some Americans doubt the plain and ominous facts about the threat to us posed by Iran. And there is something profoundly wrong when, in the face of attacks by radical Islam, we think we can find safety and stability by pulling back, by talking to and accommodating our enemies, and abandoning our friends and allies.

Some of this wrong-headed thinking about the world is happening because we're in a political climate where, for many people, when George Bush says "yes," their reflex reaction is to say "no." That is unacceptable.
. . . .
It's time to step back and remember that there is a real enemy out there—an enemy violently opposed to human rights and women's rights and gay rights and the basic political rights of each one of us.

It's time to step back and see that America's interests lie with the interests of free people everywhere, and that the response to radical Islam is not to abandon them but to stand with them—whether they are in Baghdad or Teheran or Jerusalem. . . .

Read the entire speech here.

Hattip: Powerline

Read More...

Summary only...

Highlights from National Intel Director Testimony

The new Director of National Intelligence, retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell, and his staff testified before Congress yesterday. The highlights include:

Iran is training Iraqi Shia militants at Hezbollah camps in Lebanon. Senator Lieberman noted that this is very serious and recommended "we ought to consider taking steps to stop [this training] in defense of our soldiers."

3/4 of the old leadership of al Qaeda has been killed or captured

al Qaeda is reconstituting in the Fronteir Provinces of Pakistan, an area that is only nominally under Pakistan's control

al Qaeda is planning attacks throughout Europe, as well as in Iraq and Syria.

Iraq is the "cause celebre" for foreign jihadi recruitment. Note that I do not know whether Director McConnell was asked what the effect of a rapid withdrawal would be on jihadi recruitment.

The political situation in Iraq is difficult because Shia are not confident in their control of Iraq, the Sunnis act as if they are in control, and the Kurds are biding their time and protecting their position.

Democrats at the hearing complained because the National Intelligence Estimate included an assessment that a rapid withdrawal from Iraq would lead to chaos.

Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) was one of several Democrats who questioned the decision to include an assessment of a "rapid withdrawal" of coalition forces from Iraq as part of the recent National Intelligence Estimate. The NIE judgment was that such a withdrawal would increase violence and hasten deterioration of the situation in Iraq -- a finding that has since been cited by Bush and others who support a troop increase and oppose withdrawal.

National Intelligence Council Chairman Thomas Fingar, who supervised production of the NIE, told the Senate panel that "unquestionably and categorically" there had been no political pressure to shape the estimate.

"I'm not criticizing your bona fides," Bayh told Fingar, "but I do care about the credibility of your work product . . . and when you start down that slippery slope, you just get into these kinds of arguments."

The Democrat's reaction on this issue goes to the trouble that is at the center of the party right now -- how to make the greatest partisan advantage out of the war while not having to face responsiblity for any acts that they may take.

Read More...

Summary only...

JOE LIEBERMAN IS THE VOICE OF REASON ON IRAQ

In a WSJ editorial, Senator Lieberman makes a very eloquent appeal to the anti-war partisans to stop their march towards ending our involvement in Iraq by any means necessary.

We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's cause--the cause of freedom--which we abandon at our peril.

Read the whole story. Senator Lieberman is that rare politician, a man who stands by his convictions despite relentless pressure. And indeed, he paid the price when the far left purged his impurity from their party in the primaries. We will see who listens to his eloquent plea, and we will see if the Democrats who have sold their souls to the anti-war wing of their party finally drive the Senator Lieberman to join the Republicans.

Read More...

Summary only...