E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNEW YORK -- On Sunday, Michele Bachmann urged the Pentagon to develop a war plan “immediately” that would evaluate ways to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
"We must accelerate our covert operations and our cyber operations in Iran, and order ... the CIA director to take all means necessary to stop Iran from getting the bomb before it’s too late," said Bachmann, a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
“And the Pentagon should prepare a war plan immediately to tell us what to do to prevent Iran from gaining those nuclear weapons,” she continued.
But these remarks, which came during a speech at the annual dinner of the Zionist Organization of America, a pro-Israel group, stopped short of calling for immediate military action against Iran.
“I do not take lightly the prospect of committing the United States troop to stop Iran,” Bachmann said. “Only a fool would ever wish for war."
Bachmann repeated that theme during a press conference following her speech, telling reporters it would be “foolish” to rush into war, before adding,: “We must be prepared to do whatever is necessary to stop Iran. They are the threat to Israel, they are the threat to the United States.”
Iran's nuclear program, though long a concern inside conservative circles, is again in the spotlight since a United Nations report released earlier this month showed Iran has made further steps toward achieving a nuclear weapon.
Finding a medium between “wishing for war” and being “prepared” could mark a new way Bachmann will talk about managing the threat -– allowing her to strike hawkish and practical tones in equal measure on the issue that has become the centerpiece of her foreign policy agenda.
It also sets her apart from Republican opponents who draw a harder line on both sides of the issue. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has called for a joint American-Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Herman Cain has said he doesn’t support the idea of military action against Iran.
Bachmann called on Sunday for a variety of measures against Iran that stop short of military action, including public support for Iranian dissidents, a naval blockade, and a regime of “crushing” economic sanctions that would seek Russia and China’s aid in shutting down Iran’s central bank. (Both countries have financial relationships with Iran.)
Election politics also made a brief appearance Sunday, when Bachmann was forced to address her work as a young lawyer at the IRS.
ZOA’s president, Morton Klein, had woven that biographical detail into his introduction, setting off boos in the crowd.
“To everyone that was mortified in this room to learn that I was a tax lawyer and worked with –- on behalf of –- the IRS,” Bachmann said, “I actually wore a white hat and was trying to be an advocate for lower taxes in that position, not for higher taxes. “
It was a unique reference to her former employer, which Bachmann often eludes mentioning by describing herself as a “former federal tax attorney.”
Bachmann wasn’t the only high-profile speaker Sunday. Glenn Beck received a “defender of Israel” award from the group, delivering a speech that included teary tributes to leaders of the resistance against the Nazis, and a sweeping reproach of the American political left.
“I’ve said George Soros is no friend to Israel,” Beck said, referring to the prominent liberal philanthropist who is Jewish. “Let me add to it: neither is this administration.”
Leave a Comment:
Hey Michelle..... have you proposed a War Tax to pay for your foreign adventures? You already have trillions in unfunded wars that have not been paid for.
Just cancel obamacare and use the savings (obama method) to keep troops. in Iraq!
We have a plan...send our kids to get killed, spend trillions, stay forever to spend trillions more...
unfortunatly they have been using that plan for to long now. If we are going to continue to start a war, send our men to die, then leave giving the place back to those we fight.....lets at least stop sending Americas best and brightest, and start sending our inmates, street thugs, welfare drains. That way the waste and loss wont be as tragic.
"War is a poor chisel for carving out a peaceful future"
MLK
Love that quote...Too bad the Republican's don't understand it.
From a historical viewpoint it would appear that the democrats have a more difficult time with this concept....
U.S. Civil war:..southern democrats attempt to leave the union and start war by firing on union forces at Ft Sumpter South Carolina.
Mexican American War: president james polk (democrat)
Mexico Invasion & WW1: woodrow wilson (democrat)
WW2: franklin roosevelt (democrat)
Korea: harry s. truman (democrat)
Vietnam: JFK & Lyndon Johnson (democrats)
Iraq & afghansitan: george bush (repub)
Seems to me like the majority of wars were the results of democrat leaders. Maybe they need to learn this lesson????????
You forgot George H. W. Bush and IRAQ I.
JFK wanted to end our involvement in Vietnam and was killed for his choice. Johnson knew that he had no choice if he wanted to live.
All the other "wars" came to a positive resolution and were paid for. Only the Bush wars, of which I am including Prescott Bush's Vietnam war, have been undertaken with deficit spending, are unpaid debts, and will continue to add to the debt for generations to come. Endless war is a cash cow for defense contractors, like the Bush's Carlyle Group.
I apoligize...I missed reading that page in my liberal handbook so I was not aware of the rule that all democrat started wars are wonderful and justified and only republican started wars are illegal and horrible.....AND that all of our wars are BUSH's fault. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I feel so foolish now that when I was sweating my tail off at con thien on the DMZ I actually cussed LBJ when in fact I should have been blaming BUSH....
How silly of me.
You're silly alright. Eisenhower, Nixon and Prescott Bush and the CIA had more to do with our involvement in the "police action" in VietNam then JFK did. They killed him for a reason, Nam was one of them.
Do you really think FDR "started" WWII? He pushed the Japs, but he didn't make them attack us at Pearl. He raised taxes to pay for it too, unlike the Bushes who shifted the cost of the "wars" to future generations of Americans who will never benefit from the spoils of the "wars"..
Eisenhower was responsible for vietnam and killed JFK??? And you think I am silly?? HAHAHAHA
Keep drinking that kool aid brother...it must be good stuff.
My orders showed the commander in chief as LBJ, but then maybe it really was Eisenhower in a mission impossible mask....hmmmm HAHAHAHAHAHA
You guys are always good for a chuckle...
Dense in AZ: Eisenhower warned against the military/congressional/intelligence/industrial complex gaining too much power over the political process. JFK tried to disengage from Vietnam the position Eisenhower's CIA had placed us within. They, the CIA, killed him for attempting to stop the escalation which would further empower them and enrich the members of the complex. LBJ was made an offer he "couldn't refuse" and still expect to remain living. the "complex" got its "war". In reality Vietnam was little more than a live fire exercise which allowed the complex to test our equipment against the Soviets by proxy, and charge the taxpayer for the destruction of the weaponry we had already paid for.
If you are going to play stupid, you are going to look stupid.
yea buddy it was all Eisenhower the master mind of all things to come, Lee Oswald was a patsy and it was CIA shooters on the grassy knoll, your phones are tapped by CIA and spooks are everywhere.......but thank goodness you have your tin foil hat to protect you ever since the alien ship released you.......conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy......the truth is out there molder but I dont trust scully......HAHAHAHA
Your better than twilight zone.
I bet it was IKE swimming in the gulf of tonkin which caused thaat incident too???
HAHAHAHAHA
Its IKE, IK is BUSH in disguise, its IKE I tell you.......HAHAHAHAHA
You appear to have reading comprehension problems. Ike warned us of what was to come, if we failed to distrust what we were told by the MI complex.
Our phones are "tapped" by the NSA, and the permissions under the CALEA and USPATRIOT stautes.
It is amazing that Christians like Bachmann who preach that government should tell a woman what to do with her body, (pro-life) that god hates homosexuals, that a woman should submit to her husband, that her number one interest when becoming president, is to send more of our troops to KILL more people around the world... Nice Christian!
No wonder Americas are thought as evil/satin
The first American or Israeli bomb to fall on Iran will blow the price of oil into the stratosphere. The shock of $300 and higher per barrel of oil will plunge America into a deep economic depression that will last for a long, long time. Deprived of it's cheap oil economic lifeblood, Americans will find their trend toward third world status to be accelerated precipitously. War with Iran is not an option.
The failure of America to achieve energy independence, a critical national security vulnerability that administrations have cited since the oil shocks of the 1960's, constrains America's responses to threats issuing from the Middle East.
Nuclear weapons already are in Moslem hands in Pakistan. Mutual assured destruction (MAD) between the American and Soviet nuclear powers worked for fifty years until the Cold War ended. MAD has proven as effective a defensive strategy as any. MAD works for the Indians and Pakistanis.
Projecting far into the future, no matter how many temporizing attacks are launched against Moslem states, MAD may be the only remaining option ultimately for (non-admittedly) nuclear-armed Israel to defend against a nuclear-armed Moslem adversary.
Well argued, but not very enlightened. The attack on Iran will render their ability to threaten oil shipping moot. If Pakistan nukes Israel in response, that will solve two of our remaining problems.
Simplistic assumptions on how a conflict will play out again and again have proved wrong.
Underestimating the will and the means of your opponent to retaliate, near- or long-term, can be fatal to you.
Consider the "cakewalk" in Iraq ten years ago and the "hunt for Bin Ladin" in Afghanistan, where he wasn't, as the latest examples of costly unanticipated adverse consequences of simplistic assumptions by advocates for war, like the under-educated, religiously deluded, hysterical, pandering Bachman.
They were not unanticipated, nor were they unintended consequences. I'm not advocating war. We're not fighting for our survival, nor are we threatening to take over Iran as a whole. Pre-emptive military strikes are not the same thing as war. The Iranians have no hope of repelling our attacks, or inflicting any real pain upon us. If we commit to applying overwhelming force, they will have no option but to surrender to their own youth movement.
Pre-emptive strikes are the same as war. A claim that Iranians cannot retaliate ignores the vulnerability of oil tankers transiting the Straight of Hormuz and other maritime choke points through Moslem territory, the thousands of miles of pipelines to be blown, tank farms that can be set ablaze, and pumping facilities at harbors that can be disabled for weeks, if not months. These counter strikes can be performed by small groups and individual operatives. The Iranians would be compelled to launch counter-strikes in a effort to dissuade further strikes.
During the last Israeli incursion toward the Litani River, Iranian trained Hezbollah paramilitary repulsed the Israeli's advance, destroying many tanks and sending demoralized Israeli troops home. The prototypical guerilla war, is only one of many modes of waging "asymmetric" war against numerically superior conventional forces with armor and air forces. If Iranians can achieve that result with a paramilitary proxy, what can they do with their own forces and with other proxies within the wide Moslem domain? Do not underestimate the capabilities of your adversary and his willingness to seek revenge longer than you can remain vigilant.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have made the problem of "Islamofascism" more widespread, as would be expected, given a billion Moslems extending from Morocco to Mindanao. Moslems can be as passionate about the defense of their "religion", as can Israelis their's. If a large Moslem country is attacked, how many more of a billion Moslems in that and other Moslem countries will seek to even the score?
Please. So your scared by their sheer numbers? We have many ways to use their numbers against them.
We are not attempting to take over their country. We are seeking to limit their power and influence, at least while they allow themselves to be ruled by theocratic mullahs.
I did not ignore the vulnerabilities of the traffic in the straight of Hormuz. I stated that the remaining powers, after the decapitation of the majority of them along with the destruction of their nation's hope to join the nuclear club, will leave them with little incentive to ask for more trouble. The youth will be freed to pursue a secular democracy, they won't have anything to gain from vandalizing petro-infrastructure. They know that should they allow that to go on, we will annex large portions of their southern coast.
Paul,
Just who are the "we" you claim to be a part of? Whoever you are, I assure you are a minority, whatever your notion to the contrary.
The "youth" of the Iran are no more likely to take over Iran than the youth of America are going to take over the United States government.
Words like "decapitation" and "secular democracy" have the ring of neocon propaganda, the kind of nation building nonsense George Bush and Dick Cheney were suckered into.
In your zeal to select violence as the solution the problem, while duplicitously denying that is your intention, you minimize the costs and inevitable blow-back, and fabricate a best-case, fantasy outcome, just like the neocons in the run-ups to the trillion-dollar, no-win Iraq and Afghanistan debacles.
The American people now largely recognize neocon propaganda for what it is.
What causes the fascination with war these right-wingers have? Iran is not a threat to national security. If they were to develop nuclear weapon capacity, The US and Israel will deal with it absolutely. A preemptive strike is irresponsible. Politicians like Bachmann are part of the lunatic fringe, operating way out of the mainstream.
Could your thinking be more backward?
In what way? How about some clarity? If you have an opposite opinion, let's hear it.
The rank and file people of Iran are basic decent people with western leanings and prime for a democracy movement as demonstrated in recent protests.
Its the radical islamist government that holds the country by force that is supporting the hezbollah terrorist group and working for a nuclear weapon to use against the US or Israel.
I myself would be looking for ways to take down the governemnt forces while supporting and empowering the people who want democracy so we can eliminate the threat without creating a war torn country that despises the U.S. as a whole.
Iran could become one of our strongest allies in this region if we did it right.
Does anyone else think that Mrs. Bachmann was just speaking to her audience? After all, our leaders of the present do like to fan embers into blazing fires.
Sad really, takes the focus off the issue.
In this case, the balance of power in the Middle East.
Doesn't Michelle KNow,, Hermain Cain said War with IRan is impossible because Iran has mountains......
another big war industry schill running for office... can't we end the wars and balance the budget??? maybe create some jobs?? no.. you'll all want another war?? I don't I am voting for Obama, I HAVE common sense
Well thats one garuntee, you will never have a war with obama at the lead, he will bow down and surrender without so much as a wimper or fight.
you are correct, he will nip the situation long before war even becomes a thought for the enemy, just like the libya war.... he defeated Khadaffi without so much as a wimper or fight
Iran's nuke program will mysteriously.. "self-destruct" again.... they seem to have bad luck with computer viruss, that only attack the specific eqipment in their nuke centrufuges
I must have missed seeing him on the news in libya defeating kadafi.....
The rest of us thought he was on vacation in Marthas Vineyard....but maybe thats just his cover story while in secret he flies around the world single handedly killing bin laden and capturing kadafi and stuff huh???
He sure gets around.
It clearly must not take much of a brain to outsmart cattle for a living out in AZ.
no facts...begin insults....great plan!! Blame BUSH!! HAHAHAHAHAHA
But on the subject of cattle, beef cattle are fairly smart and you always have to be on your toes around them as any one with experience knows. But its worth it because they (and my other business's) have paid for everything I have.
If I wanted "EASY" I would herd liberals instead of cattle, they are dumber than a box of hammers, always bunch up in packs, possess no independent thought of their own and will remain circled around the dumbest one in the group. It would make my work a lot easier....but in the end I would lose because they have ZERO market value.
Bachmann should prepare her own exit plan.
We already have a "war plan" for every contingency imaginable with every country:
1. president gives saber rattling yet useless speech.
2. congress and president hold flurry of urgent meetings with no clear results.
3. press creates special music and interviews unknown experts for event.
4. SEND MARINES to resolve problems.!!!!!
what is wrong with this woman. it is like she has no concept of this nation being broke. No money anymore. wake up and smell the roses. unless if she is willing to fund the war out of her own pocket. and i agree with Paul M. well said my friend. Help me understand somebody, how politicians like michelle become presidential candidates?
Never mind how politicians like Bachmann become presidential candidates (which is scary enough). Hell, I need to understand how someone with a vast vacuum where her brain ought to be gets elected to any public office! I guess that says an awful lot about this nation's electorate. Sad, but true.
It comes from the same americaan population that thought a inexperienced professor with questionable citizenship would be a good leader also.....
What is really scary is that after we scour the country the best we can do is clintons, bush's or what we have now???? Come on.
Somewhere out there has to be an experienced non career politician with the interest of America and not the interest of a party and leadership capabilities...
please...somewhere, anywhere
An inexperienced state and US Senator, ya mean? Bush had been a governor but that didn't make him experienced enough to take the PDB of August 6, 2001 serious enough to ask the CIA and FBI to share their information on al-qaeda's presence in the USA with each other and the Couter Terrorism CZAR at the time Richard Clarke, even though he and George TENET spoke every day. 50 people at CIA knew al-qaeda was in our country for 244 days before 9/11 and none of them told CLARKE.
These majority of the above comments suggest a broad consensus against another war.
Once again...everybody...repeat after me...THAT WOMAN IS AN IDIOT!!!
now dont bring hillary into this!
Let's all get in a circle holding hands and continually repeat, "I hope Iran will play nice" 10 times, then smile deep from within and peace and love will fill the air across the globe then we can dismantle our military.
Hmmm just take a deep breath, idiot's!
Why would a Republican vote for Obama and the Democrats? Because they realize the current Republican Party really only represents the very few. Because they want the Grande Ole Party, with a sincere interest in the people, back and see the only way to get that is to totally and firmly reject what they have become. Because they recognize the truth, that America isn’t coming close to being a “Liberal” society but it is quickly progressing towards being a “two class” society with the very few (1%) having greatly and the majority (99%) having very little (as continually proven by the growing spread between the wealthy and the total middle class). Because they recognize and understand that the severe problems weren’t caused by excessive taxes or government spending but rather are the result of exploitation by the few, costing the majority greatly and with a permissive government being co-responsible. Because they see that “the money” is aggressively and arrogantly working against the population, obnoxiously even taking them for granted, to achieve their goal of always “more” for the rich regardless of what it costs everyone else. Because the Republican Party’s actions clearly show that their stated positions are just subterfuge to deceive and put over their actual self-serving actions. Because they don’t want to return to “more of the same”, Bush-Cheney style, that cost the majority so much. Maybe simply because they are part of the 99% and not the 1%, or just because they want to vote their conscience!
The hyperconcentration of wealth requires a tilting of the playing field and a writing of unbalanced rules favoring the wealthy that only a corrupted legislature can manage.
This woman is the public face of a failed political ideology. The Tea party is officially dead.
All a-s-s-h-o-l-e Republicans know how to do is promote wars.
The Iranian people are not the ignorant war mongering morons Republicans paint them to be and at the end of the day are reasonably educated. Who gives a flying F-U-C-K if Iran has nuclear weapons when, if at the end of the day, they use one of them on anyone or sell one of them to a terrorist group whop uses it, we will blow their entire country of the face of the map with our arsenal of 4500 nuclear warheads that can be targeted on them and delivered within 45 minutes.
This is assinine and more George W. Bush b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t- war mongering hype to stir up the ignorant inbred rednecks that comprise 98% of the Republican party.
Pakistan has NUCLEAR WARHEADS and is a far greater threat to delivering them than Iran will ever be.
But they feel safe because they can detonate one, and if we begin a launch sequence to respond the russians will get involved and posture as if they feel threatened and our spineless leadership will reuse to act.......
Its a risky gamble but one that I think they will pull off, because we will sit back and allow it to happen and then be scared to respond for fear of a world nuclear war with russia. (who happens to be helping iran)
We're not going to launch ICBM's at IRAN. "Launch sequence", indeed. Someone is stuck in the Cold War. The Russians won't have anything to say of any consequence until the "raid" is over.
GB: What are you smoking? The detonation of more than 100 thermo-nuclear weapons in the atmosphere near or on the Earth will result in so much radiation and fallout that we would suffer horribly from its effects as well.
Bachmann, I would imagine the WH and Defense Dept have been working on plan. I trust that does not include invaded Iran...If Cheney and Bush were still in office I'd be very worried.
I feel like we got stuck between tackleberry and barney fief..........one wants to invade and kill everyone and the other is to gutless to even respond!
Ask yourself a few questions:
1. Do we really want a nuclear armed unstable middle-eastern country?
Bachmann not my favorite, but at least she can see the obvious risk to the US.
2. How many of you think a nuclear Iran will not assist other unstable countries to obtain nuclear capacities?
3. Should we just accept we can't stop them with our current leadership?
That women proves 'Dumber and Dumber' was not just a movie !!!
AS IF - the Pentagon hadnt already a whole library FULL of war plans for an Iran conflict !!!
But, as usual, Bachmann mouths off to encourage the other 'hawks' (ducks?) to star yet another WAR that nobody needs or wants. Freedom of Speech is such a 'barbed' concept...!
I find it very amusing, the Ditto Heads think bombing is always the answer.
Minnesota, whats the deal ?
Can you feed your representative some credible, useful information ?
I really think intelligence should be a qualifying factor on putting people on the intelligence committee. She is just spewing what she thinks the tea party wants to hear.
This woman should just shut the hell up!! First she reveals intelligence information, now the publicly calls for a war plan against Iran. Just the thing to make a nutty Iran even nuttier! How can such a dangerous mouth still be in Congress. People in her district must be just as nutty as she is! Maybe Minnesota is also the place of fruits (Marcus) and nuts ( Michelle).
PS the Pentagon already HAS a war plan for Iran, just as they have for any nation they think might become a serious enough problem that an attack is necessary. It's SOP!