U.S. Is ‘Flashing Red’ Light at Israel, Sen. Reed Says
EmailABC News’ Mary Bruce reports: Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said this morning that the U.S. military is "flashing red" at Israel not to attack Iran.
"From the military commanders I’ve spoken to, the yellow lights are blinking very, very quickly," Reed said in an exclusive "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos. "In fact, I think, even, it might be a flashing red, because the consequences in the region would be significant, and they would be region-wide."
Pentagon officials are reportedly increasingly concerned that Israel could attack Iran’s nuclear facilities this year.
In the same interview, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., agreed with Reed, but to a lesser degree. "I think there’s a caution light. Look, the good news is that the American and Israeli militaries — intelligence community, government — work very closely together," Lieberman said. But he also noted that the "clock is ticking" and that "right now … we have to pick up the strength of our sanctions against them."
Reed joined Lieberman in calling for non-violent negotiations. "I think we have to seize the time. As short as it might be, we have to seize the time for a diplomatic approach, sincerely." Both senators serve together on the Armed Services Committee.
Reed and Lieberman also debated presidential politics and whether Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has shifted his policy on Iraq. "There’s been a significant change in Barack Obama’s position on Iraq in the last week," Lieberman said. Obama said earlier in the week that he would be open to "refining" his policy, but later asserted he was not referring to his 16-month timeline for withdrawal.
Reed, however, strongly disagreed with Lieberman. "Sen. Obama is outlining a strategy to redeploy our forces out of Iraq. Sen. McCain has a strategy of staying there indefinitely. That is the key, significant strategic difference.”
Lieberman went on to say that Obama’s policy on Iraq was falling in line with Sen. John McCain’s, R-Ariz., war strategy. "Look, for a long time, Sen. Obama said, ‘let’s get those troops out as quickly as we can, regardless of what’s happening on the ground.’ Sen. Obama, I think, here on Iraq, is trying to deal with what the former vice president might call an inconvenient truth, which is that, on Iraq, John McCain has been right and consistent, and Sen. Obama has been wrong.”
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
I missquoted. I meant to say IRAN will push Obama.
Posted by: DemocratNoMore2 | July 6, 2008, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
An unsettled War in Irag, a delayed and pushed to the back burner war in Afghanistan and hostilities in Iran?
Caution light Joe says? Well Joe I guess we can start the draft then, by the way I am for that, but I do not think the public is; especially those in high places with sons and daughters of draft age.
Posted by: Thinking | July 6, 2008, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
Obama has NOT changed his postion on Iraq. Do a search on the debates and read what he said.
Main stream media is too lazy to research stories for facts. Instead they let the Republican party feed them headline making stories. The big headlines make more money than the truth.
Besides being lazy, main stream media is owned by people that benefit by the Republican agenda that makes the wealthy richer while the rest of us are losing.
Until people realize what the media says is not often factual or complete, the wealthy will continue to make more money on our backs.
Posted by: Jim | July 6, 2008, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm
Jim — read his 2002 speech before you make such a bold error in BHO’s position.
Posted by: Aston | July 6, 2008, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm
Lieberman is right that the Israeli’s and the U.S. have been working very closely together and we sent our top military brass to Israel and I’m sure the discussion was more than who’s uniforms look spiffier. If we are currently giving Israel a ‘yellow’ light, it means that first of all we are cooperating with the Israeli’s on when an attack happens and secondly – much like Hezbollah acts as Iran’s proxy-army – the Israeli’s will be doing our dirty work in taking out Ahmadinejad’s nuke facilities.
As for Obama is there ANYONE out there that thinks he wouldn’t be more sympathetic to muslim country’s? He happened to spend a portion of his childhood in an Indonesian madrasa. BTW for those that didn’t notice Indonesian poll numbers for what they think about the U.S. is about 90% unfavorable.
One more thing, isn’t it funny that this ‘change’ candidate is doing exactly that – changing his positions by the hour? Doesn’t his flag lapel pin look great on him after he spoke out against wearing one as ‘not showing true patriotism’ a year ago? Gee and what a coincidence he happened to start wearing it a week after locking up the democratic nomination…
Posted by: Mike in L.A. | July 6, 2008, 1:53 pm 1:53 pm
As DemocratNoMore2 pointed out, Obama may very well be tested, as was JFK. More to the point, W. was tested by the 9/11 attack, and he failed miserably, spending $3T invading the wrong country and not getting Bin Laden after 7 years. Obama, being smart, will do a lot better than that.
Posted by: James Fox | July 6, 2008, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm
The United States should LEAVE ISRAEL ALONE! We should neither condemn nor condone whatever Israel needs to do to assure their survival.
Israel has FAR more experience dealing with Muslims than we can even come CLOSE to.
Why do we always think we “understand the situation” better than anyone else?
Posted by: Rhys | July 6, 2008, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
Obama’s statements could mean he will remove the military from Iraq even sooner than 16 months. It is irresponsible for any Presidential candidate to state exactly what they plan to do because it provides information to the enemy.
————————————-
Obama is a liar he will never “remove” all troops. Get a grip people we are there for forever, THAT IS WHERE THE OIL IS! That is what Saudi Arabia wants! We stay they rule!
Posted by: HP Boston | July 6, 2008, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
HP Boston… the only thing wrong with your argument is that we were getting more oil from Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power. The Muslims are not going to just SIT on their oil; they can’t eat and drink it! They need to SELL it so they can build ostentatious high-rise buildings and bombs to blow up ours.
Bush’s War was about ideology and revenge. Besides, it’s the “wrong war”, because seven years ago our REAL enemies were (and still are) in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Posted by: Rhys | July 6, 2008, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm
Stan:
Isn’t the columnist for the New York Post (a Rupert Murdoch enterprise) and his column ‘Page 6′ currently embroiled in a 6 million dollar law suit for fabricating interviews?
Posted by: abram | July 6, 2008, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm
Thinking – The false implication you refer to is from the radical newspaper ‘israelinsider’. This same outlet is widely known for spreading false claims about Obama, including his birth certificate. Jake Tapper of ABC News has been quoted stating “nowhere in there does Malik expressly say anything about Obama having a Muslim background.”
Therefore, I agree with Stan, you are trying to spread false rumors by insinuation.
Posted by: Mack | July 6, 2008, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm
Finally some sense. An attack on Iran would bring decades of reprisals.
Posted by: antenian | July 6, 2008, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
@ Mack
Look at the post by DemocratNoMore2 posted at 1:33:09 just above my post asking for who confirmed the post. What I was insuating was that the quote was inacurate.
Anyone who has been on these blogs long know that I am a Obama supporter. It is quite common to qoute the post when asking a question.
Posted by: Thinking | July 6, 2008, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
JRE (7/6/08 2:48:03pm) is right on! These Republican “dust-ups” are merely distractions and too many give those efforts their energy. No one wins those word exchanges!
The adrift McCain campaign garbage scrawl has produced nothing from the beginning other than stench. What more could be expected from campaign run by, until most recently, lobbyists.
Posted by: Lou R | July 6, 2008, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
Well, hello antenian! You may find that an intelligent debate is difficult on this forum. You and I have already proved that people with opposing views CAN debate without insults, but apparently we’re in the minority here.
Posted by: Rhys | July 6, 2008, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm
DemocratNoMore2- Good thing not all of us Americans are white, so we still will have a country even if Obama does as you accuse him of planning
Posted by: jase | July 6, 2008, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm
Another group that has profited handsomely from the Iraq war is the crop of Washington lobbyist insiders who represent the defense contractors and have made millions securing contracts for their clients.
————————————–
Obama knows them all too!
I think our best bet is Nader HE alone is not in BED WITH BIG BUSINESS!
Vote Nader!
Posted by: HP Boston | July 6, 2008, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I did a great job on speaking up for Obama on “This Week” interview with George Stephanopoulos. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn sounded out of touch with the mood of the country. I would trust the Military Commanders who Sen. Jack Reed spoke to because of them we have the freedom to have debates on bloggs like this.
Posted by: Franklin | July 6, 2008, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm
HP Boston
What is your source for facts “Obama knows them all too!”
Posted by: Julie | July 6, 2008, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm
With obama’s apparent reversal on Iraq, he has had his first lesson in Foreign Policy 101 – hasn’t quite made the role of intern yet, but he’s working on it, OOPS, here comes a complication; what to do about the Israeli/Iran question. No, that’s for Foreign Policy 201 – that will b fiven next semester. Patience Obama!!
McCain/Romney 08
Posted by: Temagami | July 6, 2008, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
Reed, however, strongly disagreed with Lieberman. “Sen. Obama is outlining a strategy to redeploy our forces out of Iraq.
You mean,Obama’s cut and run policy.
Posted by: waggdogg | July 6, 2008, 5:31 pm 5:31 pm
What is so hard about understanding what Obama says which is “We will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.” I first heard it in a debate against Clinton and he has never backed away from that. His intention is to get out in sixteen months, if that time schedule can be met prudently. His intention is to get out if only for economic reasons. McCain is to stay for as long as it takes to win where win is not defined.
No matter what Republicans say the only way out is with Obama. What is more you can trust it will be done prudently. Before you can leave you have to plan for the exit. Obama will do that prudently just like most of the other things he plans.
Posted by: Ronnn | July 6, 2008, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm
” but studies show that Muslims around the world are at least as likely as Americans to condemn attacks on civilians.”
AND THEN, IT’S ONLY THE ONES WITH THE BOMBS UNDER THEIR GARB…..
What? ME Worry???
shades of mad magaazine!
Posted by: egads! | July 6, 2008, 5:43 pm 5:43 pm
Lieberman/Loserman is representing the interests of the state of Israel not those of the USA or his own state when it comes to foreign policy.
Posted by: Last Call | July 6, 2008, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm
Temagami – Pure stupidity.
Posted by: antenian | July 6, 2008, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm
I agree with Ron Paul on economics. In that area Obama is a close to Paul as you are going to get who can win. I have expressed my own opinions but when Paul spoke about economics I consistently agreed. Be fore the abuse of credit cards you could nor spend what you did not have. We’ll have to return to that era. Unfortunately there will be much pain between now and then. This country can not afford John McCain.
Posted by: Ronnn | July 6, 2008, 6:39 pm 6:39 pm
Ronnn – I agree. Fiscally responsibility seems so obvious.
Posted by: antenian | July 6, 2008, 6:45 pm 6:45 pm
nice link julie now if people would take the time to read and gather facts on their own instead of sitting here bashing then they would see obama did not flip flop its very sad to see journalist getting personal i understand they support whomever they do but isint their jobs to report the facts and not favortisim??? wheather they like either canidate
Posted by: ANGIE | July 6, 2008, 6:59 pm 6:59 pm
Ronn: Wish Paul had a chance. He seemed to give the most honest and wise answers to the few debate questions he got in those so-called republican debates.
Posted by: Ben Straub | July 6, 2008, 7:09 pm 7:09 pm
Agree with Ronnn, antenian and Ben; unfortunately, sanity and politics don’t seem to mix much…
If we allow an Israeli attack on Iran, then we’ll be stuck in the middle of a regional war rather than just a civil war.
Posted by: doc | July 6, 2008, 7:19 pm 7:19 pm
Jack Reed is just a brilliant Senator. West Point and Harvard educated. Army Ranger and paratrooper. Dyed-in-the-wool Progressive. And a true academic of American and military history. If Obama were choosing on pure substance, this guy would make an amazing VP.
Posted by: ElodieStClair | July 6, 2008, 8:27 pm 8:27 pm
Mack – I probably will go with Barr assuming he gets on the ballot in my state. I hope there are a lot of votes going to 3rd party candidates. It would show that the citizens of this country can think for themselves and think differently for a change.
Posted by: Huh | July 6, 2008, 8:32 pm 8:32 pm
doc
maybe israel should do as they always do——knock out irans nuclear facilitys and move on as they always have—-the namby pamby crap does not work—- a warrior needs to be a warrior
kissing butt wont work as shown by irans attitude.and any type of invasion would be another bushy mistake.
Posted by: rodney | July 6, 2008, 9:01 pm 9:01 pm
Only knocking out Iran’s nuke facilities is probably the Israeli game plan (hopefully).
Posted by: Temagami | July 6, 2008, 9:17 pm 9:17 pm
rodney.
BINGO!!
Posted by: Temagami | July 6, 2008, 9:39 pm 9:39 pm
goodnight
Posted by: rodney | July 6, 2008, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm
angie
goodnight
Posted by: rodney | July 6, 2008, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm
goodnigt rodney
Posted by: ANGIE | July 6, 2008, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
If we allow an Israeli attack on Iran, then we’ll be stuck in the middle of a regional war rather than just a civil war.
Posted by: doc
****************************************
We’ll be sitting ducks, right in the middle
watching missiles flying back and forth.
Posted by: spacerook1 | July 6, 2008, 11:05 pm 11:05 pm
Israel has no choice but to destroy Iran’s nuclear targets. Just as the US would not allow the Russian missiles in Cuba. They know that Obama cannot be trusted, so they will have to strike soon. Only Syria would consider coming to the aid of Iran, but with the Israeli Army set on the Golan Heights over looking Damascus, I doubt very much if they would risk the loss of their city. The fact is that most other Arab countries would sigh at relief that Iran has lost its nuclear capabilities, although publicly condemn any action.
Posted by: KC | July 7, 2008, 8:19 am 8:19 am
KC – By your logic the US has no choice but to destroy Pakistan’s capability, China’s capability, and Russia’s capability. Iran is developing them because that is the only way to get the US from threatening them. Nuke ownership gains respect. If Israel strikes, the US needs to be completely detached to avoid reprisals. I don’t see that being the case however.
Posted by: Ben Straub | July 7, 2008, 11:05 am 11:05 am
Austin, you might want to re-read his statements. I’ll help you out, the media has played it soooooooooo much that I actually have it memorized. “We need to be as careful gettiong out of Iraq as we were careless getting in.” It’s been on the books for about a year or so now, let’s try to focus.
Posted by: Ken from Atlanta | July 7, 2008, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm
Against great odds Israel has defeated Arab invasions in 1948, 1956, 1967 (in 6 days) and 1973, while each time most of the rest of the world sat on their hands waiting to see “the upstart Jews” whipped and rubbed out for good. Every loan the U.S. has made to Israel has been repaid with interest, unlike some other countries who’ve borrowed but defaulted on their loans. Yes, Israel obtains armament from us, but they are bought and paid for. With the mess Bush has created by his invasion of Iraq, we have no real allies in the Middle East except Israel. The Israel Defense Force is superbly trained and the Mossad is one of the most highly respected intelligence agencies in the world. Sen. Reed has no right to flash a red light at Israel vis a vis Iran. Neither the Israelis nor the Iranians are blithering idiots; it’s long been believed that Israel has The Bomb so the most likely action, if any, they’d engage in against Iran is to locate and destroy Iran’s nuclear hideouts.
Posted by: nanameow | July 8, 2008, 4:43 pm 4:43 pm
Sen. Jack Reed, Has gone to countries around the world and told everyone that would listen that We are losing the war.That the US is no good.That the American military was just like the Nazi SS. So what would another whacked out statement from the twit be any different?
Posted by: john | July 8, 2008, 11:38 pm 11:38 pm
Attacking Iran, would bring no
peace to Israel.
Take it easy fellows.
How about sitting around a coffee
table and talking.
Can Obama do this?
Would they let him?
We will see.
Posted by: Yekta | July 9, 2008, 1:31 am 1:31 am
AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, is the strongest lobby in D.C. and CONGRESS is afraid of them! Before reading about their tactics, which include burning down the house of an opposition American candidate, I favored Israel as the poor little country all the Arabs wanted to attack. My opinion has changed 100%. They are brutes!
Israel wants OUR sons and daughters to fight THEIR wars. AIPAC brags that it “pushed” the U.S. into invading Iraq. Now they are “pushing” Bush to invade Iran before he leaves office.
The U.S. should CUT OFF all foreign aid to them and the Arab countries. And with Cheney dipping into the Treasury for Halliburton, I finally agree he and Bush should be impeached.
Posted by: Jeff | July 9, 2008, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
Funny, Jeff, I’ve noticed so many americans coming to the same conclusions, but for all kinds of reasons besides the ones you give. The avoidance of foreign entanglements, as we were warned about by our first President, is leading this nation to disaster. When catastrophe strikes, the much derided and denigrated Mr. Pat Buchanans shadow will loom large, since like a voice in the wilderness he has been trying to warn us for years and years.
Posted by: Bobby | July 9, 2008, 8:27 pm 8:27 pm
Ariel Sharon said that Israel owns Washington. He was right on the money. Read Carolyn’s post;she is absolutely and unequivoqetly right. Without AIPAC’s blessing you cannot be a Washington politician. American Jews with their wealth and mass media propaganda, control American public opinion.
Get rid of Israel’s non existant nukes; put a verification process in place and stop the partisan pro Israel politics and guess what?
You can have constructive talks with Iran on disarmament; you can begin peace talks as long as you have human rights observers in Palestine and maybe even the terrorists will evaporate.
Instead, Israel bribes the executive and legislative branches of gov’t for a few million dollars and America spends trillions and sacrifices thousands of young lives to fight Israel’s wars, while Israel stands on the sidelines and observes.
If you listen to the rhetoric spewing from mass media, the good guys wear the yamikas and the bad guys the turbans.
This kind of logic will soon land America in ww3 and it won’t be the fault of the guys in the turbans. WAKE UP AMERICA.
Posted by: John Taylor | July 9, 2008, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm
Mcain or Obama
America loses with both
America is going belly up
that is predestined to happen
The NWO Will bury America and her freedoms
Americans are just dumbed down brain dead stooges along for the ride.
Posted by: David | July 9, 2008, 9:03 pm 9:03 pm
Were under occupation by israel. Their sympathizers buy and sell our government like two dollar prostitutes. They have made a laughing stock out of us and we deserve every bit of it for standing by like impotent puppies…Enough is enough. No more canards, diversions or name-calling tactics. Its sink or swim time.
Posted by: I Love America | July 10, 2008, 12:48 am 12:48 am
Reed doesn’t seem to want to understand—He and his colleagues in both the House and Senate are owned by Israel. Israel and its lobby tells Reed, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
BD
Posted by: Barbara Diamond | July 10, 2008, 11:22 am 11:22 am
Israel is a nasty little murdering nation with beacup loot, (ours), to buy leaders, (ours), to initiate wars so others’ sons and daughters,(ours), will murder and die for a bunch of swine kicked out of 80 countries over recorded time and hate ALL non-Jewish asses,(ours).
Posted by: pete | July 11, 2008, 11:19 pm 11:19 pm
“the good news is that the American and Israeli militaries — intelligence community, government — work very closely together,” the bad news is they’re
working on another FALSE FLAG TERROR ATTACK just like on 9/11. Hey ABC News, are you gonna be in on this one too?
Posted by: Shallel | July 12, 2008, 9:35 pm 9:35 pm
Remeber the only mideastern country that has attacked our country on at least 2 occasions ,the only one with over 200 nuclear weapons. The country we send 30 billion or so dollars to every year will veterans sleep in the streets. Turn off your zionist media and start thinking.
Posted by: Bob he Revealator | July 13, 2008, 7:54 pm 7:54 pm
I guess the truth hurts…
Posted by: Shallel | July 15, 2008, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
Lieberman should be representing the people of Conneticut not a foreign country. All Lieberman seem to care about is whats best for Israel.
Posted by: Jen, Livonia, MI | July 25, 2008, 11:36 am 11:36 am