Reid: ‘I Don’t Agree’ With Lieberman on Iran Attack!'

Reid: ‘I Don’t Agree’ With Lieberman, Iran Attack Will Only Further Destabilize Middle East »

In an interview with ThinkProgress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today rejected Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) threats of a war against Iran. On CBS’s Face the Nation, Lieberman claimed that “we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action ” against Iran.

“I know Joe feels strongly about that part of the world. I do too,” said Reid, rejecting Lieberman’s calls for ratcheting up tensions. “I believe our efforts should be diplomatic in nature,” Reid said, citing the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and others to hold a regional conference to resolve security issues in the Middle East. Reid also noted that “we are so overextended” that the U.S. does not have the ground troops necessary for a war with Iran.

“The invasion of is only going to destabilize that part of the world more,” Reid charged. “I know Joe means well, but I don’t agree with him.” Watch it here:

http://thinkprogress.org/

harry is part of the problem.
Go away harry.

Joe follows the PNAC code now, all he wants is for more people to die in the ME. Just a suggestion - stay as far away from Joe as possible. He wants evil things, do you want to be tied in with them?

I would think not.

A true leader.

Fucking Reid is useless. I sent him a letter months ago asking him why he led the Democrats to believe that we would lose the Majority in the senate if Joe bolted? I haven't received a reply. Why am I not surprised?

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/lieber...

Lieberman Switch Wouldn't Flip Senate

With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he'd consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations - though outwardly similar - contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney's ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What's the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate's 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate's organizing resolution.
<snip>

If Reid doesn't KNOW about this resolution then he isn't fit for his position. If he is aware of this resolution, what's Reid's problem? Nevermind.

Why oh why cannot the Independent Party REMOVE this SOB before he gets us into a biggggger mess (LIEBERMAN that is (holy Joe has gotta go!)).

As for you Sen. Reid, go find something productive to do is my advice - like find a way to impeach these traitors running our gov't before we are all DEAD and GONE!!!

Wow. You think maybe perhaps it might not be a good idea, do ya Reid?

And people wonder why DC Democrats get so little respect.

about Iran Strike this weekend with the NeoCon's working overtime...needed a Smack Down. On this he was doing a good thing.

Joe might have a fit and leave the Democrats, LOL.