|
Lieberman, Bennett, And Kristol
See Petraeus Hearing As ‘An Argument’ For ‘Going
Into Iran’
Think
Progress
Friday, April 11, 2008
During their appearance before the Senate on Tuesday, Gen. David
Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker accused Iran of “funding,
training, arming and directing extremist ’special groups’
in Iraq.” “I think one might look for a reconsideration
in Tehran as to just where they want to go in Iraq,” said
Crocker. “This would be an excellent time for them to reassess.”
Liveblogging the hearings for the Washington Post, Fiasco author
Thomas Ricks pondered what Crocker could have intended with his
“reassess” comment, considering that “there
will be a new American president in place in less than a year“:
But he also said, “This would be an excellent time for
them to reassess.” What does he mean by that? Why would
Iran want to adjust their relationship now, when there will
be a new American president in place in less than a year? Or
is there some sort of implied threat there: You guys better
get smart, or this president still has time to pound you?
It is unclear whether such a veiled threat was Crocker’s
intention, but some on the right are certainly seeing his and
Petraeus’s testimony as cause to begin talking about striking
Iran again.
(Article continues below)
On his radio show this morning, Bill Bennett told the Weekly
Standard’s Bill Kristol — who had a personal meeting
with President Bush yesterday — that a “conclusion”
he drew was that the hearing was “less an argument for getting
out of Iraq than going into Iran.” After suggesting that
Iran may “have to pay some price at some point on their
own soil,” Kristol said that President Bush authorizing
an attack of some kind before he leaves office is not “out
of the question”:
BENNETT: Do you think there’s any chance that, and we
won’t ask you to reveal anything confidential, do you
think there’s any chance that we might take some action
against some aspect of the Ira…against Iran, let’s
put it that way, before the president leaves office?
KRISTOL: We didn’t really talk about that, in all honesty,
directly. I don’t think it’s out of the question.
I think people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president
is.
Appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show last night, Sen.
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said that he wished the Bush administration
would tell the Iranians that “unless they stop it, we’re
going to take action.” “I’m not talking about
all out war,” added Lieberman before saying, “they
ought to believe that we’re going to hit those training
camps.”
Lieberman has previously said that “we have to be prepared
to take aggressive military action against the Iranians”
while Kristol once believed that President Bush “could easily
build political support” for strikes against Iran.
Transcript:
BENNETT: Here’s another conclusion I drew, I hadn’t
heard this. I think Pat Buchanan might have drawn it. Maybe Pat
and I would like your view of it. If you listen closely to this
thing and you see where the trouble is now, the whole thing seems
to me less an argument for getting out of Iraq than going into
Iran, ah there increased role, right or wrong?
KRISTOL: Well, it is striking how much Petraeus and Crocker —
again they have no agenda on this, they are reporting what they
see on the ground — ah, how much Iran is behind the trouble
making in the south and behind the Shia extremist groups, now
that we’ve pretty much rolled up al Qaeda, except for some
work that still has to be done up north. The Iranian backing of
the Shia becomes the main, the Shia extremists, Sadr, becomes
sort of the main obstacle to really, you know, having a successful
resolution in Iraq, and so, I think just beginning from a very
practical point of view, they are concerned about Iran and Crocker
said, he’s talked to Iran. It’s not like we’re
not talking to Iran. We’ve tried the Barack Obama method
there. I think Crocker said two or three meetings with the Iranians
in Baghdad and they have an interest in destabilizing Iraq, it’s
that simple. And I think they only way they won’t is if
they’re pushed back as we’ve done a little bit, as
the Iraqi government has done in Iraq and then maybe, if they
have to pay some price at some point on their own soil.
BENNETT: Do you think there’s any chance that, and we won’t
ask you to reveal anything confidential, do you think there’s
any chance that we might take some action against some aspect
of the Ira…against Iran, let’s put it that way, before
the president leaves office?
KRISTOL: We didn’t really talk about that, in all honesty,
directly. I don’t think it’s out of the question.
I think people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president
is. I think he thinks he needs to leave things in as good shape
as he can for his successor. I don’t think he’s going
to do something rash, I don’t think he’s got the attitude
of, “I’ve got to do it because my successor won’t.”
I think he wants to try to assume that his successor will have
our interests at heart, will take a cold serious look at those
when he takes over, and therefore he wants to leave things as
good shape as possible. That’s one reason I think he’s
very concerned not to try to drawdown to fast in Iraq. Whether
that will lead him to do something in Iran or atleast or maybe
leave it to his successor, I don’t know.
[…]
HEWITT: Now Senator, we’re rapidly getting back to where
we were in, say, 1969, ’70 and ’71, where an enemy
operating from a sanctuary does whatever they want to kill Americans,
and we don’t do anything about it. What’s your advice
to this administration about how to deter Iran from this continued
killing, as you said, of hundreds of Americans?
LIEBERMAN: Yeah, you can’t deter these people…you
know, some people say sit down and talk to them. I mean, Senator
Obama has said if he’s elected president, he’d sit
down and talk with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. But that
will be taken as such a sign of weakness, that they will just
increase their attacks against us. Honestly, I wish that this
administration would specifically and clearly warn the Iranians
that we know that they’re continuing to train terrorists
who are killing American soldiers, we know that they’re
bringing large caches of arms into Iraq, and unless they stop
it, we’re going to take action. And you know, I’m
not talking about all out war. We know, and I’m not revealing
anything here, Hugh, the American military spokespeople in Iraq
have said this over and over again publicly. We know that there
are three training camps in Iran where they’re training
the Iraqis who go back and kill our men and women in uniform.
And if they don’t cut it out, they ought to believe that
we’re going to hit those training camps. That, to me, is
an act of self defense.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
