As the Bush administration and its European allies pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff, some top legislators of both parties pressed Sunday for a more vigorous approach, including a possible military option.
"This is the most serious crisis we have faced, outside of the entire war on terror, since the end of the Cold War," said one, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. "A nuclear capability in Iran is unacceptable."
McCain was joined in his call for an accelerated approach on Iran by a senior Democrat, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.
"It's good that we're working with Britain, France and Germany," Lieberman said, listing the Europeans that have led U.S.-backed negotiations with Iran, "but their pace is too slow."
He called for the matter to be referred immediately to the United Nations Security Council, not first sent back to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog.
Lieberman, an intelligence committee member who is considered hawkish among Democrats, said not only that the United States should keep the military option on the table, but also that it had the military capability to continue fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq while launching a complex air attack on scores of Iranian nuclear targets.
"We've got to be prepared to take military action," he said on CBS-TV.
Both parties are internally divided on Iran. After the controversy over what critics said was the Bush administration's failure to secure adequate international backing to invade Iraq, some Republicans and Democrats now accuse it of relying too heavily on diplomacy.
Senator Hillary Clinton, Democrat of New York, contended last week that the administration was "downplaying" the Iranian threat. She and a fellow New York Democrat, Senator Charles Schumer, favor heavy pressure on China and Russia to end their reluctance to impose sanctions on Iran.
Reflecting the split among Republicans, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the intelligence committee chairman, said Sunday that talk of the military option was premature, saying on CBS-TV that "at this particular time, I just do not think that is any kind of an alternative."
Of bin Laden, Roberts said, "I don't think he's quite as relevant as he used to be." But bin Laden's threats to strike the United States again, he said, should be taken seriously.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz of Pakistan, who is in the United States for meetings with administration officials, insisted Sunday that his government had not been warned of an air attack Jan. 13 that killed at least 18 people but missed Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who is believed to have been the target.
Lieberman, an intelligence committee member who is considered hawkish among Democrats, said not only that the United States should keep the military option on the table, but also that it had the military capability to continue fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq while launching a complex air attack on scores of Iranian nuclear targets.
"We've got to be prepared to take military action," he said on CBS-TV.
1 comment:
I think something should be done about Iran.
I've long considered both N. Korea and Iran a much greater threat than Iraq ever was.
Bush is no speaking in the background in his live speech.
He just talked about there not being any example of the Patriot Act being abused.
I'm an example.
I would have gladly served with and joined the ranks with the honorable local and state police depts in Massachusetts, Vermont, or where I am now helping out for Katrina relief, Mississippi and Louisiana.
I was told by a Connecticut town selectman to sell my property at a loss to one of his friends, "Or else"
I did not and then had a Connecticut State Police CI pursue me as boyfriend to get information on me to set me up.
I was followed around and threatened by Connecticut police. I rented cars and mostly hid inside my Connecticut property.
I was then attacked at night on my property by a police informant and was immediately arrested.
The criminal was given immunity and Connecticut State Troopers Amaral and Langlois committed perjury to get me sent to prison for assault 3rd and breach of peace. I had no previous record.
I was given an hour to pack up and be out of Connecticut when released from prison or go back to prison.
I was told I would be arrested and go to prison if I lodged complaints against Connecticut police officers or if I contacted the media.
What is this information doing in a post about a national issue?
Well, while we are being distracted by wars and rhetoric, what is most important to us, freedom, is being stolen away.
All the soldiers that suffered and died on countless battlefields, worldwide, should their efforts all have been for nothing?
Post a Comment