Lieberman: We should “loudly and clearly” stand with the people of Iran

posted at 9:15 pm on June 15, 2009 by Allahpundit

In fairness to The One, I’m sure he sympathizes with the people against the regime. It’s his moronic belief that “engagement” will get the mullahs to give up nukes that leads him to soft-pedal his criticism of their brutality. It’s a sucker’s game, though: Drudge is leading tonight with ominous warnings of “repercussions” to come from an American expert on Iran, which any of us could have predicted (and did). As Michael Totten so eloquently put it earlier today, the idea that Iran’s prepared to give up its nuclear program for any sort of concession is “delusion on stilts.” Barring an astounding sustained effort in the streets by Iran’s population, the regime will be in no mood after this to negotiate, which makes Obama’s best bet full-throated support of Mousavi and the protesters. Roll the dice, Barry. Fight now or fight later.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Cindy Munford on June 15, 2009 at 10:57 PM

I’ve never had smores. I’m a simple sort of person. I prefer my chocolate straight up.

Loxodonta on June 15, 2009 at 11:18 PM

Loxodonta on June 15, 2009 at 11:18 PM

Request of the youngest. They are a bit much to have too often. I am going to call it a night. Goodnight, sweet dreams. If Hawkdriver chimes in later, tell him I said Hello!!

Cindy Munford on June 15, 2009 at 11:23 PM

Another snarky comment about the destruction of Israel. Can’t this stop?

clnurnberg on June 15, 2009 at 11:15 PM

I appreciate you being upset. The comment may not have been meant to be malicious,, but ironic. However, I do understand it’s impact and wish it hadn’t been posted with that particular wording.

These are troubling times, seeing the first American president who is not a true friend of Israel. However, Israel has many friends here and around the world who pray for her security every day, even though we are not Israelis or Jews.

Israel shall not be destroyed. Period.

Never again means never again.

So, if you have anxieties about threats to Israel, pray or work for her security. My best wishes to you and please take good care.

Loxodonta on June 15, 2009 at 11:27 PM

Cindy Munford on June 15, 2009 at 11:23 PM

Certainly will, and your husband’s aunt remains with me each day. Let me know if I must pray harder. Would that I could take some of her pain to ease her journey.

Loxodonta on June 15, 2009 at 11:29 PM

Another snarky comment about the destruction of Israel. Can’t this stop?

clnurnberg on June 15, 2009 at 11:15 PM

I don’t think the people who make these comments mean to be flippant about the destruction of Israel. Exactly the opposite, according to my interpretation. They are using angry and sorrowful snark to make the point that the Obama administration and many liberals are airily writing off Israel with an “oh well” kind of attitude.

I honestly don’t know why most American Jews vote Democrat. People have tried to explain it to me, but I can’t grok it. The people who respect the Jewish religion and culture and wish to stand up for Israel’s right to exist are almost exclusively on the right. The left, in contrast, seems to be the home of anti-Semitism. Most Democrats seem to be apathetic about — or worse, cheering on — the end of the Jewish State.

aero on June 15, 2009 at 11:29 PM

What does Lieberman propose we do?

Lieberman is too much of a socialist for me, the Ron Paul in reverse

Libertarian Joseph on June 16, 2009 at 12:00 AM

The only way they’ll be regime change in Iran, is if the army revolts and defeats the revolutionary guard then liquidates the ruling mullahs.

What would make the army revolt? Maybe a massive student massacre. Maybe a guarantee of American support (which would be impossible under Obama).

But this idea that one mullah-chosen stooge is somehow better than the other mullah-chosen stooge, no, nothing would change with either one.

Rebar on June 16, 2009 at 12:39 AM

aero on June 15, 2009 at 11:29 PM

For better or worse, right or wrong, jews who vote democrat believe that they are voting for the rights and betterment of the less fortunate. I don’t think they, like most Americans, have revisited the wisdom of the current social safety net and its disincentives for independence.As for certain dem constituencies disliking jews, jews are positive that this can be cleared up with education and better opportunities. If you ask my dem voting jewish friends they did not believe for a minute that Obama would do anything to harm Israel. They readily accepted Axelrod and Rahm as proof of this. Call it denial or call it wanting to see the best in everyone, but there you have it.

clnurnberg on June 16, 2009 at 1:10 AM

About time someone around here did come out and say we’re with the protesters. It’s about the last best chance to overthrow the goverment in Tehran before Israel has to roll up its sleeves and get to work.

Obama is playing a game of “who blinks first” with Netanyahu and Ahmadenijad and I’m sorry to say that he’s going to lose. The result won’t be pretty, either.

So, we watch, and we wait…

mncons72 on June 16, 2009 at 1:16 AM

4. whataloadacrap08:

So Iran had an election, huh? Big deal! Stop deluding yourself about these 12th Century savages. They’re playing a zero sum game of global domination while we’re splitting Clintonesque hairs over the definition of the word “is”!
Iran is an islamic theocracy run in tandem by fascist clerics drooling over the legalities of buggering underage family members, and a bug eyed “Twelver” intent upon triggering a global nuclear war that will usher in a new era of Mohammedan supremacy in the world.
And guess what folks, the Iranian population supports these whackos! Abdullah Six-Pack is sucking this Koranic crap up by the freakin’ barrel full. The riots in TerrorRan aren’t the birth pangs of “freedom”, they’re an Islamic fist-fight over who gets the honor of blowing your infidel carcasses to little itzy-bitzy pieces of goop.
“Hope and Change” my a$$!
Jun 15, 2009 – 4:28 am

AMERICAN VETERAN on June 16, 2009 at 3:31 AM

I’ve never had smores. I’m a simple sort of person. I prefer my chocolate straight up.

Loxodonta on June 15, 2009 at 11:18 PM

My Twin 5 year old Grand Daughters enjoyed them last night over a campfire and fed me a few. The luxury of living in rural America that Obama cannot control or destroy.

old trooper2 on June 16, 2009 at 5:55 AM

In fairness to The One, I’m sure he sympathizes with the people against the regime.

eh…

Mommypundit on June 16, 2009 at 6:30 AM

I like Lieberman, on national security anyway. He has real integrity.

Terrye on June 16, 2009 at 6:36 AM

Roll the dice? Winning in this case would be losing. If the mullahs replace Ahmadinejad with Mousavi, we’d find ourselves basically with our hands tied. An ouster of the nasty regime through people-power puts enormous public opinion pressure on Western leaders to reward Iran, even absent actual changes in its behaviors. Tougher sanctions are off the table in the immediate future, “to give the new government a chance.” And we can count on these so-called reformist leaders to forever plead for more time to consolidate power, to dissuade the West from imposing tough measures “because they would only strengthen the hardliners.” A preemptive strike by Israel is politically impossible in this environment. Before we know it, the Iranians will have nukes.

year_of_the_dingo on June 16, 2009 at 7:15 AM

This post implies that there is some connection between supporting the Mousavi faction and keeping Iran from getting the bomb. Where is the evidence of that?

Being rid of Imadinnerjacket would be a good thing in itself, so I’d like to see us throw in with the protesters just to get rid of him. But how would doing so enable us to keep nukes away from these folks? There is a step missing in the logic.

james23 on June 16, 2009 at 7:18 AM

The luxury of living in rural America that Obama cannot control or destroy.

old trooper2 on June 16, 2009 at 5:55 AM

Mind saying where? I’m jealous.

I’ve wanted to move to a rural area for a long time, or at least to a red state. Work and family ties keep me where I am, for now. But, increasingly, I am seeing that as the fed. gov’ts power increases, the ability to move from state to state to find a different way of life diminishes. Even in the far north of Idaho, Obama’s health care taxes will reach you, for ex. Do you really think you’re untouchable there? Where’s there?

JiangxiDad on June 16, 2009 at 7:39 AM

One gets the feeling that Joe Lieberman has more balls that Obama.

bluelightbrigade on June 16, 2009 at 8:12 AM

Liberman the independent needs to start thinking about Obama salting the Israelis down the river. It’s coming Joe. Maybe you ought to turn on the lights on Saturdays and start reading the writing on the wall!

kens on June 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Barring an astounding sustained effort in the streets by Iran’s population, the regime will be in no mood after this to negotiate, which makes Obama’s best bet full-throated support of Mousavi and the protesters.

His best bet to support Mousavi is to do something that Mousavi and the protestors have pointedly not asked him to do?

I think Ackerman gets the point:

“It’s emotionally unsatisfying not to proclaim unequivocal support for the protesters. But the truer measure of support, as Trita Parsi told me, is to follow their lead. Moussavi, for instance, has not issued any statement about what he wants the international community to do. If the protesters begin calling for a more direct American response, then that really will have to compel the administration to reconsider its position. But until then, with so many lives at stake, the administration can’t afford to take a stance just because it makes Americans feel just and righteous.”

orange on June 16, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Hey Joe, maybe you should “loudly & clearly” stand with the people in America that want the Obama tyranny to stop.

Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 6:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2