You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Reid says U.S. strike on Iran would be destabilizing
2007-06-12
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected on Monday another prominent senator's call for a military strike against Iran, saying a U.S. attack would destabilize the Middle East.
I'm trying to visualize a destabilized cess pool. It's not quite working.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said over the weekend the United States should be prepared to use military force to stop Iran from training and equipping Iraqi militants blamed for the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Iran has denied supplying Iraqis with armor-piercing munitions and U.S. officials say they cannot prove complicity on the part of the Tehran government. But Lieberman, appearing on CBS' Sunday program "Face the Nation," said the United States had "good evidence" that Iraqis were being trained to use the weapons at a camp inside Iran. He advocated a military strike in retaliation, saying much of the job could be done with air strikes.

"The invasion of (Iran) is only going to destabilize that part of the world more," Reid said on Monday after speaking at a forum hosted by the Center for American Progress think tank.
Who said anything about invading? Just turn it into a parking lot.
"I know Joe means well, but I don't agree with him," the Nevada Democrat added. He advocated continued diplomatic efforts with Iran instead.
They've been working so well, after all...
Reid's comments appeared on thinkprogress.org, a Center for American Progress blog, and were confirmed by his Senate staff.

Analysts described Lieberman's comments as an escalation of official U.S. rhetoric. Up to now, officials including President George W. Bush have vowed to confront any Iranian networks found inside Iraq. "This takes it across the border," said Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Posted by:Fred

#14  It is obvious that the 'unstable' part is senator H. Reid, D-Searchlight. (Maybe he doesn't have real estate futures in Iran yet and is just buying time to close the deals....) Should be looking at glass futures though.
Posted by: Phineter Thraviger   2007-06-12 19:12  

#13  Considering that part of the world, it probably means that Kuwait is helping :-)

Yep, excatal. Likely suppying the jet fuel.
Posted by: Shipman   2007-06-12 18:35  

#12  Even the threat of bombing has the Ayatollahs squirming. What is it doing to Ayatollah haters in Iran? Let's do the surgical strikes, and let Iranians do the rest.
Posted by: McZoid   2007-06-12 18:17  

#11  Reid says U.S. strike on Iran would be destabilizing

Horseshit! Room temperature mullahs are incredibly "stable".

He advocated continued diplomatic efforts with Iran instead.

After all, it's been working so well for the Europeans. MORON! It's defeatist assholes like Reid that will lose us the war against Islam. I'm beginning to agree with fellow Rantburgers that the American left is our biggest obstacle in defeating Islam.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-06-12 14:22  

#10  Admin: Isn't it about time to adopt a "dumbass" tag? There must be two or three stories just today that would merit it.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2007-06-12 14:10  

#9  BrerRabbit - yep. So true.

On a funny note: Kuwait stating they would not be part of any such attack

Considering that part of the world, it probably means that Kuwait is helping :-)
Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904   2007-06-12 14:09  

#8  He advocated continued diplomatic efforts with Iran instead.

Isn't one definition of insanity doing something over and over again while expecting a different result? Just goes to show the term liberal looney is right on the mark.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-06-12 14:00  

#7  Harry "We Lost" Reid is kinda shaky. You have to destabilize the enemy before you can win--but then winning scares Reid and doesn't fit into a good dhimmi way of thinking. Stick to the under- the-table land deals Harry and please STFU for once.
Posted by: JohnQC   2007-06-12 13:56  

#6  Tojo,

There was also a article about Kuwait stating they would not be part of any such attack. I thought the same thing when I read that.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2007-06-12 13:45  

#5  Oh, yeah. A destabilized cesspool, Fred - that'd be like the Great Gaza Sewage Tsunami.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-06-12 12:49  

#4  But an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel or US bases or Europe Wouldn't be destabilizing.

'cuz we deserve it or some bullshit.

Goddamn scum.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-06-12 12:49  

#3  Wouldn't that be the idea, Harry, to destabilize Iran? Unless you're suggesting the whole middle east is stable, now?

Or, we can continue to let them have their way with us, and everybody else. While that may be stabilizing, but it's hardly ideal.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-06-12 12:48  

#2  What I find interesting about this is that we are starting to see The Usual Suspects(TM) coming out from under their rocks to denounce an attack on Iran. What that says to me is that the fuse has already been lit for the attack on Iran.
Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904   2007-06-12 12:17  

#1  Hey, Harry, you're destabilizing but I don't see you goin anywhere...
Posted by: tu3031   2007-06-12 12:00  

00:00