- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
U.S. Is 'Flashing Red' Light at Israel, Sen. Reed Says
Email
ShareJuly 06, 2008 12:39 PM
ABC News' Mary Bruce reports: Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said this morning that the U.S. military is "flashing red" at Israel not to attack Iran.
"From the military commanders I've spoken to, the yellow lights are blinking very, very quickly," Reed said in an exclusive "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos. "In fact, I think, even, it might be a flashing red, because the consequences in the region would be significant, and they would be region-wide."
Pentagon officials are reportedly increasingly concerned that Israel could attack Iran's nuclear facilities this year.
In the same interview, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., agreed with Reed, but to a lesser degree. "I think there's a caution light. Look, the good news is that the American and Israeli militaries -- intelligence community, government -- work very closely together," Lieberman said. But he also noted that the "clock is ticking" and that "right now ... we have to pick up the strength of our sanctions against them."
Reed joined Lieberman in calling for non-violent negotiations. "I think we have to seize the time. As short as it might be, we have to seize the time for a diplomatic approach, sincerely." Both senators serve together on the Armed Services Committee.
Reed and Lieberman also debated presidential politics and whether Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has shifted his policy on Iraq. "There's been a significant change in Barack Obama's position on Iraq in the last week," Lieberman said. Obama said earlier in the week that he would be open to "refining" his policy, but later asserted he was not referring to his 16-month timeline for withdrawal.
Reed, however, strongly disagreed with Lieberman. "Sen. Obama is outlining a strategy to redeploy our forces out of Iraq. Sen. McCain has a strategy of staying there indefinitely. That is the key, significant strategic difference.”
Lieberman went on to say that Obama's policy on Iraq was falling in line with Sen. John McCain's, R-Ariz., war strategy. "Look, for a long time, Sen. Obama said, 'let's get those troops out as quickly as we can, regardless of what's happening on the ground.' Sen. Obama, I think, here on Iraq, is trying to deal with what the former vice president might call an inconvenient truth, which is that, on Iraq, John McCain has been right and consistent, and Sen. Obama has been wrong.”
July 6, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (56)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Reed, however, strongly disagreed with Lieberman. "Sen. Obama is outlining a strategy to redeploy our forces out of Iraq.
You mean,Obama's cut and run policy.
Posted by: waggdogg | Jul 6, 2008 5:31:48 PM
What is so hard about understanding what Obama says which is "We will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." I first heard it in a debate against Clinton and he has never backed away from that. His intention is to get out in sixteen months, if that time schedule can be met prudently. His intention is to get out if only for economic reasons. McCain is to stay for as long as it takes to win where win is not defined.
No matter what Republicans say the only way out is with Obama. What is more you can trust it will be done prudently. Before you can leave you have to plan for the exit. Obama will do that prudently just like most of the other things he plans.
Posted by: Ronnn | Jul 6, 2008 5:38:53 PM
" but studies show that Muslims around the world are at least as likely as Americans to condemn attacks on civilians."
AND THEN, IT'S ONLY THE ONES WITH THE BOMBS UNDER THEIR GARB.....
What? ME Worry???
shades of mad magaazine!
Posted by: egads! | Jul 6, 2008 5:43:07 PM
Lieberman/Loserman is representing the interests of the state of Israel not those of the USA or his own state when it comes to foreign policy.
Posted by: Last Call | Jul 6, 2008 5:46:52 PM
Temagami - Pure stupidity.
Posted by: antenian | Jul 6, 2008 6:07:33 PM
I agree with Ron Paul on economics. In that area Obama is a close to Paul as you are going to get who can win. I have expressed my own opinions but when Paul spoke about economics I consistently agreed. Be fore the abuse of credit cards you could nor spend what you did not have. We'll have to return to that era. Unfortunately there will be much pain between now and then. This country can not afford John McCain.
Posted by: Ronnn | Jul 6, 2008 6:39:03 PM
Ronnn - I agree. Fiscally responsibility seems so obvious.
Posted by: antenian | Jul 6, 2008 6:45:43 PM
nice link julie now if people would take the time to read and gather facts on their own instead of sitting here bashing then they would see obama did not flip flop its very sad to see journalist getting personal i understand they support whomever they do but isint their jobs to report the facts and not favortisim??? wheather they like either canidate
Posted by: ANGIE | Jul 6, 2008 6:59:53 PM
Ronn: Wish Paul had a chance. He seemed to give the most honest and wise answers to the few debate questions he got in those so-called republican debates.
Posted by: Ben Straub | Jul 6, 2008 7:09:14 PM
Agree with Ronnn, antenian and Ben; unfortunately, sanity and politics don't seem to mix much...
If we allow an Israeli attack on Iran, then we'll be stuck in the middle of a regional war rather than just a civil war.
Posted by: doc | Jul 6, 2008 7:19:11 PM
Jack Reed is just a brilliant Senator. West Point and Harvard educated. Army Ranger and paratrooper. Dyed-in-the-wool Progressive. And a true academic of American and military history. If Obama were choosing on pure substance, this guy would make an amazing VP.
Posted by: ElodieStClair | Jul 6, 2008 8:27:00 PM
Mack - I probably will go with Barr assuming he gets on the ballot in my state. I hope there are a lot of votes going to 3rd party candidates. It would show that the citizens of this country can think for themselves and think differently for a change.
Posted by: Huh | Jul 6, 2008 8:32:27 PM
doc
maybe israel should do as they always do------knock out irans nuclear facilitys and move on as they always have----the namby pamby crap does not work---- a warrior needs to be a warrior
kissing butt wont work as shown by irans attitude.and any type of invasion would be another bushy mistake.
Posted by: rodney | Jul 6, 2008 9:01:31 PM
Only knocking out Iran's nuke facilities is probably the Israeli game plan (hopefully).
Posted by: Temagami | Jul 6, 2008 9:17:48 PM
rodney.
BINGO!!
Posted by: Temagami | Jul 6, 2008 9:39:55 PM
goodnight
Posted by: rodney | Jul 6, 2008 10:00:12 PM
angie
goodnight
Posted by: rodney | Jul 6, 2008 10:01:31 PM
goodnigt rodney
Posted by: ANGIE | Jul 6, 2008 10:03:14 PM
If we allow an Israeli attack on Iran, then we'll be stuck in the middle of a regional war rather than just a civil war.
Posted by: doc
****************************************
We'll be sitting ducks, right in the middle
watching missiles flying back and forth.
Posted by: spacerook1 | Jul 6, 2008 11:05:00 PM
Israel has no choice but to destroy Iran's nuclear targets. Just as the US would not allow the Russian missiles in Cuba. They know that Obama cannot be trusted, so they will have to strike soon. Only Syria would consider coming to the aid of Iran, but with the Israeli Army set on the Golan Heights over looking Damascus, I doubt very much if they would risk the loss of their city. The fact is that most other Arab countries would sigh at relief that Iran has lost its nuclear capabilities, although publicly condemn any action.
Posted by: KC | Jul 7, 2008 8:19:48 AM
Post a comment
