I sometimes wish Lieberman would run for president again. I would ten times rather have a social liberal (tax and spend) who at least has some notion of reality when it comes to terror and war than someone like John Edwards. The comparison bears some resemblance to that of FDR vs Carter. My disagreements with Lieberman are towards his policies, not towards him as a person.
Anyway, he shows his mettle - and his willingness to tell it straight here.
Mr. Lieberman remained firm when asked whether he was suggesting strikes against Iran.Refreshing. Contrast, if you will, with this.
"I am. And I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran, but we have good evidence," he said. "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."
Mr. Lieberman said he would leave any such strategy to military generals, but that it could be accomplished through an air campaign. He said failure to stand up to Iranian aggression would further weaken the U.S. position in Iraq and raise the likelihood of acts of domestic terrorism.
"We cannot let them get away with it," he said. "If we do, they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part, and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home."
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who is running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said sanctions are the most effective tool against the Iranian regime.Because, as student of history, one should understand that sanctions have ever been effective at deterring attacks or imposing our will on other countries...right?
"I would talk to them, but I would build an international coalition that would promote and push economic sanctions on them," he said during an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition." "Sanctions would work on Iran. They are susceptible to disinvestment policy. They are susceptible to cuts, economic sanctions in commodities."