Redstate

regarding Iran. They will recommend continued discussion, diplomatic engagement etc.  Any specifics risk alienating various sub-groups of the party. It's easier to sit back and criticize than it is to lead and I don't see any leaders in the areas of defense and foreign policy on the Democrats team (including the former military folks they've recruited).

The congressional leadership should schedule a vote (perhaps preceded by hearings) on a sense of the House/Senate resolution like:

"A nuclear armed Iran is incompatible with United States vital interests. The United States commitment to preventing even the uncertain possibility of that threat to our security is unequivocal, by peaceful means if possible but by whatever means necessary."

While this has the "wedge issue" political benefit of forcing the Democrats to either alienate the raving lunatics who dominate their base or alienate rational swing voters, passing such resolution would be beneficial for American security regardless of the domestic political effects. In the current situation it's appropriate for President Bush to speak in diplomatese with only indirect threats of force, but the Congress can strengthen his hand by playing the tough cop. The more obvious we can make it that the U.S. definitely will use military force if Iran doesn't verifiably give up it's nuclear weapons ambitions, the more likely our "allies" and Iran itself will behave in such a way that we don't need to resort to military force.

when the vote on the Authorization of the Use of Force is voted on in October. It's the same squeeze play Bush used for Iraq and it will work again.

President Bush wouldn't succumb to vile tactical-electoral politics.

vote on issues of National Security is a "vile tactical-electoral politic[s]"?

a while ago & said we need to get "good intelligence" that we don't currently have before making a decision about Iran.

Good seats are still available on the rollercoaster, but it will fill up fast.

The Democrats were the ones calling for an Iraq vote before the 2002 elections.

Good Intelligence

< n >

1. The kind of intelligence that the Democrats can claim they didn't get to see before the attack.
   
   
2. The kind of intelligence that is certified by a UN representative as being obtained directly from sworn testimony of the enemy.

but they weren't responsible for 9/11.

Unilateral strikes risk alienating France.

Blah blah North Korea blah blah.

she did say that we needed to rely heavily (my interpretation) on the IAEA.  "After all, they were absolutely right about Iraq."

I guess this word also has a different definition in the Webster's New Democrat Dictionary.

I don't have a problem with Bush putting the squeeze on the Dems.  You shouldn't make national security policy serve the cause of political gain - but there's nothing wrong with making politics serve the cause of national security.  If Bush needs to use a pending election to line up support for what needs to be done, he should go for it.

Getting the Dems to go on record sounds great, but will it make any difference?  How many of them will vote for it before they vote against it?  Since no Dem even remotely interested in running for president could vote for it and keep the moonbat wing happy, how many will vote against it before they vote for it?

And how many will vote for it and then if it turns out not be as successful (otherwise known as: easy) as they wanted will claim they didn't really think the president would go ahead with it, they just voted to give him the authority so he could bluff better?

Haven't we all seen this movie before?

Well I'd say, given the likely fallout from a military strike, all other options should be tried first and not just fake tried.  We have the world on our side this time and if we handle it right we can keep them there.  And no nation-building baloney this time around either.

We keep the pressure on with diplomacy and economics for another year and a half, 2 years until we have a substantially smaller footprint in Iraq (less targets for shahabs) and have build up the Strat Petrol Reserve a little bit.  Then we make our decisions based on how things are going then.

You don't have to beat the drums like you're looking forward to a war.  Even if it proves necessary, it is still a horrible thing.

You know, exhaust all diplomatic options and all that.  Considering we won't be ready to attack them for a year and a half anyways unless it becomes a matter of "must do right this exact instant" urgency.  They're not gonna have a bomb for 5 years.  We can play this one smart and tough.

Just send in some tin foil to cover their power grid.

4 weeks into it, they will cry uncle, as no society can operate with zero power.

Even Iran

Its just a little tactic, but it can bring large results. We don't even have to say we did it.

What is your source on this?

Hans Blix?

For the past 10 years people have been saying Iran won't have the bomb for 10 years. When does the 10 years run out? Or is it perpetually renewing?

And, 5 years from now they will have dug the bunkers deeper, added more anti-aircraft capability, deployed more submarines, improved their air force ... They are not going to stand in place while the clock runs out.

White Flag Party, reporting for duty. Seriously John, you lost the last election with your wussy stance on Iraq. Don't post your lack of Iran stategy here when you're a rock star on dkos.  Give Theresa a smooch for me.

Is anyone worried that a unilateral bombing campaign would start a border war with Iran?

Iran into a glass plane. However, what's going to take a year and a half?

Don't give away all the good secrets. No one is supposed to remember how that works, remember, we've moved on to "shock and awe".

what we did right in Kosovo, me thinks.

...that's the key to understanding the subtext of what Drum is writing.

Most members of the Totenkopfverbande who occupy the Democratic "netroots" at Kos and DU hate Bush much more than they could ever hate bin Laden, Abu Musab al Zarqawi the Beheader, or Ahmadhi-Nejad, whose apparent ambition is to complete the work that Heydrich began. This is key to understanding the hesitancy of the Democratic leadership, including the Angry Pantsuit. They understand, unlike the folk over here at RedState, that today's screaming moonbat is tomorrow's fundraising coordinater or state chairperson. Tomorrow's Democratic leaders are being formed in a witches brew of Bush Hatred and malicious anger.

It's not POSSIBLE for them to come up with a coherent plan against Iran, not when they know that their base isn't angry at someone who wants to inflict an atomic holocaust on the Jews, but at Chimpy McBushhitler. The Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi "Real Security" scam gave the game away. A risible joke. The trademark of amateurish soundbite politics. Great Democrats such as George C. Marshall, George F. Kennan, and Dean Acheson, would have been appalled at such a document.

And so, they are limited to thinking about it in terms of electoral politics. This is very relevatory and tells you where thinking Democrats are at. The Democrats can't get past their innate anger with Bush for winning in 2000 and beating them on national security. They do not take the threat from Iran against Israel's existence seriously. If they did, you wouldn't see the kind of "here we go again, when does Condi start talking about mushroom clouds" skepticism that you do in the lefty blogs.

A word about Drum's sources.  No one who knows anything is talking to Kevin Drum. Kevin Drum is a member of the Opposition. Perhaps some CIA and some officers have opened their mouths (Rumsfeld is not popular w/ the officer corps right now, for reasons that go beyond Iraq-pensions, health care, etc., so I wouldn't be surprised if people are talking from the services). For example, CIA has probably been cut so far out of the action for leaking sensitive national security material that I would take any leak to the NYT right now with a huge grain of salt. The same applies to Drum's sources.

No one who knows anything about Plans and Operations, especially in regards to the use of nuclear weapons, is talking to Kevin Drum.

But he sure got Andrew Sullivan excited, didn't he?

Where is the intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear program coming from?

The Democrat "plan" for national security makes me twitch too, but dial the rhetoric way, way back.

Are these the same intelligence sources that are regularly ripped apart for being corrupt and incompetent? If so, why is all the intelligence regarding Iran's nuclear program being taken without question?

GW and company will just skew the facts in order to attack at a politically opportune time.  That is, unless his greed for more oil makes him act sooner.  Or, Cheney and Haliburton decide their profiteering efforts in Iraq are abating and go looking for New Pickins ala Iran first.

at the same time every day we wait means they dig the bunkers deeper, improve their air defenses, modernize their air force, etc.

Only a fool would believe that anyone wants to go off half-cocked and charge into an unnecessary war. But at some point we need to stop gathering data, stop negotiating a meaningless agreement, and either decide they are just kidding and stand down, or they are deadly serious and take action. There are real soldiers, sailors, Marines, air men and Coast Guardsmen who are going to face the Iranian defenses. The better those defenses get the harder it is to deal with and the more people will die.

It's an honest question. I've seen numerous comments posted about how the CIA is out to destroy the administrations credibility, how they're to blame for the stockpiles of WMDs that were never found, how they intentionally supplied bad intelligence, etc.

Why are they all of a sudden trusted for supplying accurate information regarding Iran's nuclear program?

that everyone, US and foreign intelligence services, Republican and Democrat Congressmen and Senators, etc., believed that Saddam had WMD. I doubt if anyone on this blog knows the true details, but it appears that the best intelligence, US and foreign, available says that's what is happening. Could it be wrong? Sure. You willing to take that chance?

And it's not moving toward democracy. What did we do right?

EU guys run things, so they are to blame there.

that Saddam did not have a nuke or an active development program. We all know how Saddam played games with the IAEA and the US. We all know what happened to Saddam.

So if you were Iran, why would you play the same games with the IAEA and the US if you weren't developing a bomb?

is simple.  If a military buid up and/or operation is posibly required you sort out which Dems can vote for it and survive.  The rest take deeply held principled stands against war and the collateral damage, as a fugitive from Kos put it above, War is a horrible thing, and thanks for informing us.  With sufficient face saving votes the Dems claim support for the Administration.  Take your pick; this will last for anywhere from three days to three weeks. Then, well you know the script don't you?  Out comes Murtha, Kerry with his beret, they may even dust off Max Cleland, always good for a tear.  With their affinity for mud allusions to quagmires will abound and people who can't even work their way thru a Capitol checkpoint will bloviate about competence, a man who left a woman to suffocate in his car will ramble about torture.  It's called having it both ways and diving to new depths.  But when will they hit bottom?

If he doesn't do it, the minute the going gets rough they'll undermine the war effort like never before. Just look at what they're doing now with regard to Iraq, and this is after they voted for the AUMF. Imagine what will be in Iran without one.

the left has been demanding that we "internationalize" and bring in the EU, UN, ASPCA, BALPA, etc. If they have hosed Kosovo why does the left insist on getting them involved in Iran?

Now then, what do you suggest we do?

I'm probably missing something, or maybe a lot, but looks to me like our options are three:

1. Take what the President of Iran says about their objective to build a nuclear weapon and use it, seriously.  And act accordingly.
   
   
2. Review all of the available intelligence from CIA, NSA, and foreign sources.  Realizing that they are the same folks who got Saddam and his WMD's wrong.  Act accordingly.
   
   
3. Hide under the bed with John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi and hope nothing happens.  But first make a speech about how serious we are about Iran's nuclear capability and how we will be really, really irritated if they blow Israel off the map.  And, oh by the way, we aren't about to let them develop delivery capability to deliver a nuke to Europe, after all if they bomb Europe, they'll be killing Muslims and we don't want that.
   

Is there an option 4 that I missed?

everyone here seems to want to march to WWIII in a hurry - until their kids and grandkids die.

The next war won't be over there, they will send missiles here - and the fat lazy american public will be slaughtered.

Don't wish for war - we can't win it - we're not king of the hill anymore. You guys are stuck in the 1950's. and streiff sucks big donkey dongs.

toodles

We have the world on our side this time and if we handle it right we can keep them there.

We had the world on our side last time for twelve years after Gulf I.  The UNSC was rock solid through seventeen Resolutions on Iraq during that period.  The final Resolution before hostilities was UNSCR 1441, dated November 8, 2002, and passed unanimously, which gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations".  

Then, as Coalition Forces gathered in Kuwait, Germany and France, eagerly joined by Russia and China, decided that the "final opportunity" was not final and started debating another Resolution.  The Coalition said that "final" was "final", and went into Iraq in late March 2003.  The Coalition would have been hard pressed to maintain a large force in Kuwait for indefinite months while the UN debated, and it was obvious that the miscreants had no intention of approving military action, despite all those Resolutions direct toward that end.  This was before Saddam's multi-billion dollar Oil-for-Food bribery and extortion rackets were revealed, and France and Russia were shown to be huge beneficiaries of the crime.  

With the steadily declining Coalition casualty figures in Iraq and the looming nuclear threat in Iran, this is no time to start reducing forces.  Even if ground actions in Iran are minimal, the US military nearby will lend stability to the situation as the Irani nukes are taken out.  That means it will happen before November 2006.

The UN Member's abandonment of its noble principles in favor of Saddam's blood money should have been the end of the UN in it's present form.  A better plan would be to send the UN to Brussels and create a United Democracies organization to preserve peace, similar to the functions described in the original UN Charter.

can do that, and lose the next war before it starts.

Clean-up in Aisle 42.

3... 2... 1...

right and bush and the whole intelligensia wrong.

I was unaware that the "clean-up in Aisle n+1" was a trademark of haystack, inc.

I will cease and desist will all deliberate speed.

Mea culpa.

I like yours better.  I stole "clean up in aisle" from C17wife...she uses aisle 7, you guys do the 3..2..1...I just dared to be "different", since citizen blam was already trademarked...

I kinda like using the link and the number of the offending comment.

no mea culpa necessary-I defer to your refinements docj...

Then I will treat yours as a privileged motion - a friendly amendment, in fact - and we will all get on with the business of clubbing baby seals and torching the proletariat's paychecks with aerosol cans (for the wonderful simultaneous effect of ozone depletion and greenhouse gas production all while further impoverishing the already poor and stupid) as per the latest orders from Rove Central.

Carry on, citizen.  We've a schedule to keep and my H2 is idling in the driveway.

The President's strategy is the one I want to hear.  It is the only one that matters.   Nancy Pelosi isn't going to be the one to release the dogs of war if that is what ultimately happens.

That being said I think our President along with Ms. Rice are playing this situation very very well.   Talk tough, show the stick, but work all the channels.  

Iran is 10 years away from a weapon and has a fairly moderate population (don't let their leaders fool you).   A lot can happen in 1O years.   Again, I think Condi Rice has been right on the mark here.

People have been saying that Iran is 10 years away from a bomb for, oh, 10 years. When does the 10 years run out? Or does it reset every time it looks like someone may actually deal with the problem?

If you have some 9 or 10 year old articles to direct me too ... or even 8 ... I 'd love to read them.

I have complete confidence in our CIA and military, and their evaluations.

they really DO blink when they see a ball peen hammer coming at 'em?

gets here faster. That way Islam wins. They can rule over what ever is left that's inhabitable for the next 1000 years, because if forced to choose, I'll bet that's what they'll leave.

The sort of argument that went "I don't decide let God sort 'em out."

The mullahs can deflect domestic unrest by stirring up the "evil hegemon" pot.

If we bomb/cruise missile Iranian nuclear sites, I don't believe that the battle will next be joined inside of Iran.  IMO, there would be at least two other theaters we'd have to worry about: Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and perhaps Israel and Lebanon.  

Iran has great influence with many Shiite political leaders in Iraq, and alienating those leaders with a strike on Iran could make the situation in Iraq really difficult.  So far, we've mostly been fighting Sunnis and foreign imports, with only a few confrontations with Shia, who comprise 60% of the Iraqi population.  We don't want to go to war with them -- especially since we've been arming and training them.

The well-publicized threat to the oil trade in the Gulf is also worrisome.  I'm not too worried about the well-hyped supercavitation torpedos the Iraqis have been testing -- they have one pretty big flaw when used against carriers.  They have only a 4 mile range (plus or minus) and carriers tend to have lots of sea and air protection...  (The carrier escort is probably more at risk, but air supremacy is pretty nifty.)

A nuclear Iran is a dismal prospect, but I think it's way too early to commit to military action, especially since military action could be so catastrophic to our chances in the Middle East and to the world economy.  I confess I'm at a loss for what will work, but there must be better strategic choices now, although I admit that military force may later become more attractive.

read in this thread so far.

First, I really don't understand why some people are banging their drum for war.  We do not have the resources available to go to war against Iran, so anything that happens won't be for a while until Iraq isn't so much of a problem.  

Secondly, this should be about the security of our country.  There is NO WAY Iran has the ability to shoot a missile at our country.  They'd have to sneak one through our borders, which is why I think securing our borders is much more important than attacking another country.  This SHOULD NOT be about advancing the Republican party.  Let's face reality for a second, there should be no reason that there needs to be a vote before this election authorizing force against Iran, and I think everyone on this website knows it.  This should not be about forcing Democrats to go on recond NOW about what to do in Iran.  Everyone should be focused on what the actual President is going to do and not what the Dems "plan" is.  There is 2.5 years of his presidency left, and if there's someone who needs to lead this country right now it's him, not the Dems in Congress.  I think it would be fantastic for the country if Dems took back part of Congress in this election so that they wouldn't be put in the position to look like a bully for wanting to go to war so quickly, or be portrayed as an anti-American weakling for opposing force, but then it would force Bush to work with the rest of government to find a solution and there would be no question about political motives.  Neither party should put the other in that position and if it was Dems that did it to Repubs I'd find it equally as bad.

Lastly, yes this discussion seems eerily similar to the one we had in the winter and spring of 2003.  Turns out, whoops we didnt really need to be having that discussion then either.  The administration has a REAL credibility problem and they're going to have to do a lot better with their rationale for going to war with Iran than they did with Iraq.

Well it's still tactial partisan politics.  Just because you like the outcome doesn't change that fact.  

aren't enough evidence of a crash speed weapons program, then I don't know what evidence might dispel you. And that's from the IAEA. And what the Iranians have admitted to.

They also have said they are only building a "peaceful" energy program, with all those centrifuges. So, sitting on all that oil, they have, not only the need, but the "will of God" for their nuclear program, with the delivered blueprints from Dr. A. Q. Kahn. Who, of course, only designed "peaceful" nuclear facilities.

Please think through these facts.

1. They have an enormous resource of creating weaponised fuel.
   
2. They "bought" the blueprints from Dr. Kahn.
   
3. The talk from the Supreme Council that authorises the use of nuclear weapons to speed the return of the "Imam".
   
4. They do not have to DESIGN anything, just manufacture.
   
5. The DPRK has sold them the delivery vehicles and they have tested them. The only one missing is the one that can cross the Atlantic. (The Russians aren't THAT stupid as to put their fingerprints on that sale).

They, themselves, have provided the data, not the CIA.

The articles are there, just Google, and use "+"'s with the IAEA and "Iran". You will get your results.

does not have to be joined on the ground in Iran for what I said to be true. Aerial bombardment with manned aircraft places the crews at risk. The longer the Iranians have to improve their air defenses the greater the risk to the Air Force, Navy and Marine air crews. The longer we wait the more time the Iranians have to improve their naval assets and place our sailors at greater risk.

The longer we wait the better prepared the Iranians can and will be and the greater the risk. Plain and simple.  

that we do not have the resources to tackle Iran. Can we assume that you work in war plans at the Pentagon?

what we did in Kosovo was win the land for an al-Qaeda-allied terrorist organization. Hence the lack of interest in multiparty democracy.

His people are saying 10 years.  

You reply in defense of another poster.   I asked him to back up his claims.   That is all.

however, I think you would notice that no one here is "bahging the drum" for war. There are those of us who, unfortunately, feel that that is where it's going to end up. We do not look for war, ever.

The problem, at least for me, is that Iran has already interjected itself into Iraq. You might agree that it's our "tar baby" at the very least. They have run stealth candidates in the last election, funded various parts of the "insurgency", and weaponised them with re-engineered terrorist tools. They are already at war with us.

So, we ask, why not call a spade, a spade?

Or, do we leave it for us to clean up later when it gets really expensive.

Otherwise, you make fair observations, especially the political case for patriotic unison, but to be fair, that tool hasn't been used by the opposition, except for Sen. Lieberman.

ARRGH! I can't type.

dates ranging from 20-30 years, to speculation that they already "own" their first, and are trying for a production run. All from "unnamed" officials. I'll stick, for now, with what they've admitted to.

not mine.

just a quick one, source: The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control (just a snippet of the entire list, emphasis added:)

Iran Nuclear Milestones - 1967-2000

The Risk Report

Volume 6 Number 4 (July-August 2000)

1967. Start-up of the U.S.-supplied 5-megawatt research reactor at Tehran University.
      
1970. Iran signs the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
      

{SNIP}

1992: After a week-long inspection in Iran, an IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) team finds no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon program.

1993: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) says Iran is 8-10 years away from acquiring nuclear weapons and says foreign assistance will be critical to the effort.

1994: Iran signs a contract with China's National Nuclear Corporation for the supply of two 300-megawatt power reactors and continues to shop for a heavy water research reactor.

{SNIP}

Well it's still tactial partisan politics.  Just because you like the outcome doesn't change that fact.

I would put it that we have a duty to protect our national security and the safety of our soldiers, and just because it's good tactical partisan politics doesn't change that fact.

My point was that a congressional resolution stating our determination to prevent a nuclear armed Iran, by force if necessary, would be in our national interest and actually reduce the probability of war with Iran; and at the same time it would have political benefits for Republicans.

I recognize that reasonable people may disagree on whether such a resolution would improve the chances for peacefully preventing a nuclear armed Iran. However for those of us who do believe that such a resolution would advance that cause, likely saving the lives of many American pilots and many more Iranians, it would be the height of irresponsibility to forego such a resolution just because it would give some Democratic politicians problems with their base.

Every now and then, as here, good policy is good politics.

1.     If we need to do battle with someone, we don't wait until we have built up the bank account.  We have gone to war before with out the comfort of knowing that we had all the resources.  In fact one could argue that to bring the troops back then go into Iran would involve transport loses both ways.  At any rate, this argument is invalid. We will be able to do what is necessary. Is war with Iran necessary?

2.    Security for our country.  How long could the US live and prosper if Iran took Israel, France, Europe,  shut off the supply of ME Oil?  What about the parallel to Hitler.  Did pre-WWII America wait as long as they could?  What would have happened if history found America in that war a few years earlier?  What about the fact that they can attack us here and now that means we should rely on the Atlantic Ocean for our protection?  I do not buy the "this is not our business" part of the stay out of the war argument anymore. If you do buy into this arguement, ask yourself what the tipping point for you would be.

3.    Now about the intel.  I for one do not mind that we attacked Iraq when we did. I don't know what Sadam had in mind by not allowing international inspections, but it cost him dearly.  If the Iranian government would throw the door open for the inspections that would be required. I would not be worried about war with Iran now. Perhaps we are missing some negotiating tactic?  We have what intel that we have.  We don't really have an option of disregarding what we learn.  

4.    My final point is that we could wait until attacked again.  This seems to be what would satisfy the anti-war population.  We could take the first hit.  Let the other guy draw first.  It works in Hollywood.  In the real world I suspect it would be a very bad idea.  

Seriously. I thought we'd hit the bottom of the barrel.

Ah, well. Happy trails.

How about

Israel and the United States believed in 1992 that Iran would attain a military nuclear capability within eight to 10 years. In 1995 ACDA Director John Holum testified that Iran could have the bomb by 2003, though by 1997 he testified that Iran could have the bomb by 2005-2007. In the mid-1990's the view of the United States government was that Iran was implementing a military nuclear program that could achieve a weapons capability within five years, that is, by the year 2000. As of 1998 the estimate of the US Central Command was that Iranian efforts could result in the development of a nuclear device by the middle of the next decade, that is, by the year 2005.

Source: globalsecurity.org

I just don't remember who.  :>)

I took you seriously....alienate France indeed!

It would be pure tactical politics to try to push the Democrats to vote in a way they don't want to because the SHORT TERM reprecussions would hurt them.

Either you can say that political manipulation to serve an overall purpose is fine or it's not.   Whether the people here at RedState wish to believe it or not most Democrats feel as strongly about their positions as most Republicans.  They feel that their manipulation is worth doing because of a greater cause as well.

...tolerate too much anger during wartime for the nation's own good, just so they can hit the next quarter's fundraising targets. That's how I know their not an adult party yet. When people like Lieberman are treated like pariahs, I treat the Democrats with the contempt they richly deserve.

Understand that these people are contemplating the impeachment of the commander-in-chief in wartime for spurious reasons.

No, I will not dial back my rhetoric. The Iran crisis is serious freaking business, and these people are treating it as if its some electoral device that Chimpy is using to gin his approval rating back up into the low fifties so he can forstall impeachment. We have a zealot in Tehran who speaks in terms of annihilating a group of people simply because they are Jews, and too many people in Donkeyland are saying, "see, see, the rhetoric's the same! Condi will scream "Mushroom Cloud!"

When a "serious" Democrat like Kevin Drum (as opposed to a Moonbat opportunist like Kos) starts gaming Iran electorally to find an advantage, Republicans need to get upset. That means that the adults haven't spanked the kiddies into place yet.

so you favor a massive scaleup in troops to protect our airbases while we conduct bombing raids in Iran?

both open and secret sources, Western, Israeli and Arab intelligence all agree.

The Saudi's have been paying particular attention, as they are rapidly building thier own nuke as a defense against the Iranian one.

Yep, cold war number 2 on the horizon, unless we heat it up a little.

No doubt there is a type of war between the US and Iran.  Call it a cold war. We occupy countries on two of their borders.

I think he's given way too much respect. During the  Social Security reform debacle he wrote a piece claiming that it was okay to raise taxes on the wealthy & use the dollars to save SS. His reasoning was that the wealthy of the 1980's knew that a  Social Security crisis would erupt about 2020 and that they accepted the Reagan tax cuts knowing that their taxes would need to be increased in 40 years to save SS.

Drum thinks the wealthy of 1984 could have somehow bound the wealthy of 2024 to an agreement that only seems to exist in his fevered brain. The guy really isn't very smart.

No one who has any real inside knowledge is talking to  him. Perhaps Condi's hairdresser, but that's it.

But seriously, some CIA people who don't like Bushhitler, some military who aren't sure where things stand. But no one on the inside.

You make good points. I am not so sure that even if Iran has a few nukes It will be all that bad. You hear people say, They could give them to terrorists. It would be the most unheard of thing in all of human history if a nation state would give a strategic weapon to a bunch of fanatics.

  They will find out what other nations found out. Nuclear weapons cause you to think very hard about your actions. They are the most unusable of weapons.

  The other thing to be considered is that the regime there could change to one we would like more. It will certainly not change if we attack.

even the most generous reading of TBONES comments would have to be construed as banging the drum.

How long could the US live and prosper if Iran took Israel, France, Europe,  shut off the supply of ME Oil?  What about the parallel to Hitler.

  And how would they accomplish that miracle?

I see no parallel to Hitler.

seems like quite a few fools here just can't wait to go off half-cocked into any, please god any, war.

Or it could just be me.

Air Defenses?  Where they gonna buy the tech from, Russia?  We had that stuff beat in 89.  Let alone now.

Worst case, they improve their air defenses to the point where it takes us 3 nights of bombing to destroy their air defenses and air force instead of 1.  Completely made up numbers but you think they're going to be shooting down B-2s and F-22s?  

Once the air war is won we bring in the 101st on choppers to various sites and spend a long weekend trashing them.  That division is hard as rock now and will be harder after they finish their 2nd deployment in Iraq.  Hardened bunkers are no defense against a GI placing explosives inside them himself.  Then we get out.

But the US is none the less one of the targets of proposed Iran terror and Islam fanaitcs none the less hold that eventual world domination is their goal.  I was arguing that our national security is involved in this instance.  Am I wrong about that?

Not Bush. Are you thinking of their constituents, perhaps?

What better way to have a debate on the issue than to have it clear and open before the elections so the voters can register their judgement before execution? The Democrats may have a good argument for not taking kinetic action in Iran. I'm not convinced we should rush into this headlong. But I'm not too keen on living with a nuclear Iran. The Democrats certainly have not made the case for an alternative beyond the Bush is dumb, Bush lied.

The Democrats need the pressure of electoral rejection to come up with arguments against the proposed policy and an alternative policy. Last time they failed to do so and they should regret it. This time they should stand up before the fact instead of whining after.