Peril!

In the course of a post with which I otherwise agree, Ed Kilgore remarks "Edwards' efforts to separate himself from Clinton and Obama by deriding the 'war on terror' (accurate as it is with respect to the terminology involved) is politically perilous, to say the least." This is actually what I think is the most significant aspect of Edwards' decision to take this bit of sloganeering on.

He had the balls to say what everyone knows is true (but only parenthetically) and is too afraid to say and . . . he wasn't struck down by lightning. Hillary Clinton's shameful efforts to play right-wing demagogue in response to Edwards have no sting whatsoever in my view. For years and years this kind of dogma has built-up among Bush administration critics that None May Say The Obvious about the "war on terror" lest they face dire, dire political consequences, but a party that doesn't have sufficient confidence in its national security chops to offer a really banal criticism of the Bush administration is bound to end up projecting that insecurity to voters in a way that's much more damaging than taking a 48 hour hit as the White House borrows the Clinton campaign's talking points.

Comments

Damn straight. Thank God for John Edwards.

Posted by Tom | June 5, 2007 8:51 AM

Good for Edwards. The man is leading the party. The others are just trying to position themselves in the most favorable least risky manner...a recipe that has ended in defeat after defeat for dems.

Bravo John Edwards. He's the only one showing leadership (as he did on the FOX debate).

Posted by db | June 5, 2007 8:58 AM

Amen. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. One might hope that the sudden decline in public support to the Dems in Congress awakens the fools in office. And that includes Joe "I funded the troops but oppose the war" Biden.

Posted by J. | June 5, 2007 9:00 AM

I'm going to be donating $$$ to Edwards based on this theme alone - I cheered when he said it a few weeks ago, and again when I heard him say it during the debate Sunday night.

Posted by Chris | June 5, 2007 9:04 AM

I've had the feeling that Edwards is actively aiming to use his candidacy to press for needed changes right here, right now, to the extent that I could say that if he never won that his campaign actually helped contribute to real and positive causes.

I think that is leadership. To use your presidential campaign as partly (not fully developed, but still) an organizing campaign, but one which actually could win office with positive precedents.

I'm not an Edwards' robot, but that alone has made him my favorite.

Posted by El Cid | June 5, 2007 9:08 AM

I'd never vote for Clinton or Obama. They support the third-world invasion of the U.S., which big business is using to drive down American wages.

The marriage of big business and multiculturalism is the worst thing ever to happen to the American worker.

Big business is using legal and illegal third-world immigration to drive down American wages.

And liberals can side with big business on this issue and use "multiculturalism" to appease their conscience.

http://bluedogdemocrats.us/

Please note the Patriot Pledge and join us at the Blue Dog Discussion Forum. Thanks.

.

Posted by Old-School Democrat | June 5, 2007 9:15 AM

I love that Edwards is challenging Bush's Global War of Terror, although he didn't quite make his whole point during the debate. He calls it a bumper sticker--true--but the point is, this bumper sticker has done incredible harm. In other words, it's both meaningless and destructive. It's really a critique of militarism. Here's the best part of his recent speech:

The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world. As a political "frame," it's been used to justify everything from the Iraq War to Guantanamo to illegal spying on the American people. It's even been used by this White House as a partisan weapon to bludgeon their political opponents. Whether by manipulating threat levels leading up to elections, or by deeming opponents "weak on terror," they have shown no hesitation whatsoever about using fear to divide.

But the worst thing about this slogan is that it hasn't worked. The so-called "war" has created even more terrorism—as we have seen so tragically in Iraq. The State Department itself recently released a study showing that worldwide terrorism has increased 25% in 2006, including a 40% surge in civilian fatalities.

By framing this as a "war," we have walked right into the trap that terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.

The "war" metaphor has also failed because it exaggerates the role of only one instrument of American power—the military. This has occurred in part because the military is so effective at what it does. Yet if you think all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

Posted by david mizner | June 5, 2007 9:17 AM

One more thing; This is a great point, beautifully articulated.

"a party that doesn't have sufficient confidence in its national security chops to offer a really banal criticism of the Bush administration is bound to end up projecting that insecurity to voters in a way that's much more damaging than taking a 48 hour hit as the White House borrows the Clinton campaign's talking points."

Posted by david mizner | June 5, 2007 9:19 AM

That's a great speech - good cite, david.

And Matthew's exactly right on the politics here - it goes right to JMM's "bitchslap theory". When leading Democrats piggyback on the Bush administration's obviously incorrect, obviously destructive rhetoric around terrorism, even though the phrases in and of themselves poll well, the Democrats appear to be following. When leading Democrats use the Bush administration's rhetoric to push down one of their own, they end up looking weak.

I only hope that the rest of the field follows Edwards - this is a chance to bring down Hillary, I hope, if she can be baited to continue to attack from the right.

Posted by DivGuy | June 5, 2007 9:22 AM

There is no way I will vote for a Democrat who is weak on national security. And let's be clear, a Democrat who is afraid to take on one of the least popular presidents in American history for lying us into the worst strategic blunder in American history is WEAK, WEAK, WEAK on national security.

Posted by Disturbance | June 5, 2007 9:26 AM

We're all doing a good job ignoring the irrelevant troll - but I suggest following the link. It makes ignoring the troll even easier.

Posted by MDtoMN | June 5, 2007 9:44 AM

I would concur that the term "war on terror" is adequately (and fairly) defined as a bumper sticker by former Senator Edwards. It is a slogan, pure and simple.

The problem I have with his statement (and one of the reasons I've argued he could not win the general election) is that he fails to project that he would take terrorist threats seriously. he fails to project that he would do anything more than "let" Iran obtain and even use nuclear weaponry.

This pains me for several reasons. This post well encapsulates my thoughts.

John Edwards is excellent on social issues, indeed, as good as any Democrat in my lifetime. But, alas, 2008 will not hinge on health care, rebuilding New Orleans, or even the importance of appointing progressive judges to the federal bench. Foreign policy will dominate the election.

Admittedly, the fact that I've already written off Romney (who will find his candidacy pushed aside by Thompson and/or Gingrich), makes my characteristically brash prediction easier.

Simply put, no Democratic candidate who has espoused his current views has won a general election in a long, long time. Mostly, they get destroyed, buried in forty state+ landslides.

I have no doubt that Edwards would make good on his word to reclaim America's moral leadership, but the utter absence of "sticks" leave his "carrots" as the sole driving force of his foreign policy.

Edwards finds it easier to act as though the clandestine actions of Iran and Syria are not a concern; if anything, a distraction from his health care plan.

Mr. Yglesias is correct to point out that his leftward (certainly from '04) strategy was his only conceiveable option for victory... but should it prevail, Democrats will not find themselves happy the November after next.

Lost in all the criticism and after-the-fact hand-wringing concerning the Kerry campaign is the small matter of the Senator dominating the first debate... on national security. HRC is well aware that any nominated Democratic candidate, particularly if matched against Mad Mac or Giuliani, will have to at least match Kerry's command.

Posted by LMD03 | June 5, 2007 9:50 AM

Yes, LMD, I too would support Edwards if only he were a neoconservative instead of a progressive.

No, wait, I support him precisely because he's not a neoconservative, and I support him for exactly the reasons you summarize.

[Edwards] fails to project that he would do anything more than "let" Iran obtain and even use nuclear weaponry

The disconnect from reality here is priceless. Let's avoid actually discussing any of the options on the table, any of the messy facts that make up foreign relations, and boil everything down to a thin stew of "strength" and not "letting" the Iranians get nukes. Well, LMD, how do you suggest we stop the Iranians from getting nukes?

It is completely obvious to anyone whose head resides outside the confines of their ass that starting a war with Iran will not stop their nuclear production, and it will make hte US less safe by further unifying groups and nations in the ME that oppose US interests. We can't attack Iran. So, we're left with a diplomatic policy that probably won't work perfectly, and will not stop Iran from continuing, though hopefully more slowly, on the road toward nuclear weapons. I don't like it, but facts are facts. There are proscriptions on even US action, and we need a president who recognizes this.

Posted by DivGuy | June 5, 2007 10:00 AM

DivGuy, I appreciate your point of view, and I know it commands a majority of this site (as well as my own).

I note the sarcasm evident at the beginning. I admit my social policy views and my foreign policy views appear to most as wholly contradictory. Nonetheless, I meant what I said about Edwards and domestic policy.

My turn...

"Options on the table": I always here this phrase, what exactly does it mean? Proponents should tell exactly what it refers to.

Listen, I am nothing if not consistent here. I will answer: I would send a very strong signal to Iran... we're going to bomb Natanz and we may not stop there. I didn't support the '03 invasion due to the secretarian nature (or trust in the present regime) of one dominant minority suddenly out of power and liable to intense reprisals and persecution by the newly empowered minority. Iran would prove easier, at least the peace if not the war. Their would-be new elite is not as stratified.

Iran is empowered by international organizations and other nations directly telling them, "Well, we don't want to go to war, war is very bad, diplomacy is the solution." No, not always. There is nothing the US could do, even in the form of guarantees not to invade, that would stymie or even slow the Iranian nuclear program. I suppose then we're prepared to assist Amman and Cairo? Riyadh might wish to embark on their own program too. The point is that you DO NOT admit this. If you're not willing to at least say you might go to war, other actors can and do take advantage of that. Is there any disputing that assertion?

Posted by LMD03 | June 5, 2007 10:14 AM

Would people seriously shut the hell up about the "threat from Iran"!?! There is NO threat from Iran, just like there was no threat from Iraq. Its just the plain and simple truth. They are not in league with Al Qaeda as Mitt Romney and Rudy G seem to think, they are nowhere close to developing a nuclear weapon, they have a weak and unpopular government. Right now George Bush is trying to push this bogus missile defense "shield" thing which would involve basing the units in various countries across the world, theoretically to protect them, and us, from Iranian missile strikes - at least that's the main example he's giving people. And we here who just live in fear all the time don't realize how absolutely insane it sounds to other countries for us to be asking to keep anti-missile missiles in their country to protect them from Iran, who they know for a fact to be no threat. Really, the rest of the world thinks we are 100% absolutely batshit crazy in love with war and killing. Shut up about Iran, you all who sit around quaking in your boots about the 'threat' they pose - you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Posted by itsbenj | June 5, 2007 10:21 AM

The Ed Kilgore link goes to an article regarding Florida basketball coach Billy Donovan.

Posted by Peter Punkin' Eater | June 5, 2007 10:24 AM

Ah, such typical response, whether it is Iran as a threat, the 100% certainty of man-caused global warming, "shut the hell up." Dissent, what dissent?

Nowhere close, eh? Based on whose intelligence? IAEA? The CIA?

Weak and unpopular government? Perhaps, but we've been waiting on the next revolution for quite a long time. Whether Amadinejad falls or not, the mullahs are still around.

"SHUT UP, SHUT UP," and you wonder why America has failed to certify your foreign policy.

In all honestly, the rest of the world is nothing to write home about.

So I am to conclude you do not believe Iran would act against Israel with a nuclear weapon?

In league with al-Qaeda, no. The Sunni/Shia difference does matter, but Iran has no desire to ever see a democratic Iraq and so they continue funnelling money and weapons to insurgents which in turn kill US soldiers.

I cannot speak for others, but I do not "quake in my boots" over Iran. On the contrary, I am quite calm. Their regime is an embarrassment to the world. Evidently, their best and the brightest have not seen fit to end it; that's their problem. Either international institutions mean something or they don't. The IAEA has folded, why should America follow suit?

Posted by LMD03 | June 5, 2007 10:31 AM

So I am to conclude you do not believe Iran would act against Israel with a nuclear weapon?

What???

Of course they wouldn't. Israel's second strike capacity would level Tehran. Anyone who believes that Iran wants nukes in order to actually use them against Israel has disqualified him or herself from speaking on these topics.

Posted by DivGuy | June 5, 2007 10:34 AM

Nowhere close, eh? Based on whose intelligence? IAEA? The CIA?

So where are you getting your intel? Your gut?

What is your intent in advocating invasion? Punishment? At what cost? Radicalizing the nation's moderates.

Anyone with enough money can likely get nukes from Pakistan or Russia. How does your invasion prevent that?

JFK stared down the Soviets in Cuba, and was prescient enough to see the ramifications beyond the exigent crisis.

Invasion/bombing accomplishes nothing.

Posted by MasonMcD | June 5, 2007 10:40 AM

The whole "war" metaphor is specifically used to appeal to that white Christian male power structure than O'Reilly talked about preserving last week. Men are either losing their jobs or have lousy jobs with less and less buying power. A study in England found that in conservative governments the amount of male suicides go up and then go down in liberal governments with its emphasis on Jobs.

Come on. All this war talk is about feeling powerful over brown people instead of feeling like a failure for not making enough money.

Edwards has not only the vision of spending our efforts on jobs, but he also has the plans to do it and just not talk about it.

What happened to the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?

The answers are in restoring the liberal party with its emphasis on good jobs and keeping all of us out of poverty with universal health care. It's about restoring pride in work. And shoving the gospel of greed into the basement.

Posted by MontanaMaven | June 5, 2007 10:45 AM

It's true. It would be horrible if Democrats created the diplomatic situation necessary for Iran to get nuclear weapons. That's a Republicans job. Look at the Bush Administration systematically bungling the North Korean situation in a manner that lead to North Korean development of nuclear technology years before they otherwise would have.

Diplomacy often can work. Belligerence can work too. Belligerence for the purposes of Domestic consumption combined with failed Diplomacy (the Republican strategy) does not work very well.

I agree that an occupation of Iran would not have the sectarian problems that the occupation of Iraq
obviously had. It's worth noting - those sectarian problems made our job easier in ways. Almost 75% of the Country was excluded from the dominant ethnic group, so they generally don't attack our troops too much and instead focus on killing Sunnis. Invading Iran would avoid a lot of that type of fighting, but a lot of Iranians would attack American troops. Even if they don't like their current regime, they won't like us.

Also, why should people welcome foreign occupiers with open arms? Particularly when those foreign occupiers specifically invaded because they wanted to control the country's foreign policy. I'm proud that many Americans would fight such occupiers. We shouldn't expect the Iranians to behave that differently.

I've always been relatively okay with very militaristic arguments, if people are willing to own them. If you're going to argue that invasion of Iran should be on the table, you need to seriously start talking about increasing our armed forces by several hundred thousand soldiers. Honestly, for this type of belligerent discussion, we'd really need a draft. Until you start leading the movement to increase the army size by several hundred thousand, don't expect any informed individual to take you seriously.

Posted by MDtoMN | June 5, 2007 10:45 AM

sometimes, I wish all of those Hillary supporters who call me a purity troll for not supporting her and accuse me of buying into Republican attacks would for once take a look in the mirror and realize what hypocritical scumbags they are.

Posted by soullite | June 5, 2007 10:46 AM

I couldn't agree more. This early interplay I immeadiately thought to be the critical moment of the debate - and made clear that the Edwards campaign is about more than just nuanced political posturing - it is about rejecting this absurd and surrealistic prism through which the Republicans and so many of the media lapdogs have forced us to view the world - to our great sorrow, detriment and growing weakness.

Edwards is the only real hope.

Posted by Boxer7 | June 5, 2007 10:54 AM

I couldn't agree more. This early interplay I immeadiately thought to be the critical moment of the debate - and made clear that the Edwards campaign is about more than just nuanced political posturing - it is about rejecting this absurd and surrealistic prism through which the Republicans and so many of the media lapdogs have forced us to view the world - to our great sorrow, detriment and growing weakness.

Edwards is the only real hope.

Posted by Boxer7 | June 5, 2007 10:54 AM

LMD is right. People here also are not open enough to the earth being flat, creationism, and the moon being made of cheese. Sure you cite facts and reality, but thats really just a way to get people to shut up and limit debate to things that are possible instead of allowing things that are impossible to get their fair shake!

Posted by Rob | June 5, 2007 11:01 AM

Once more with that language, "disqualified him or herself." Are we so certain? Think of how heroic such an action would seem to the entire Arab world, no? For what it's worth, I doubt the current Likud government would destroy Tehran, Bibi, yes, this one, no.

Invasion/bombing accomplishes nothing: Uday and Qusay were only killed through invasion. Whatever one thought of Saddam as a threat, those two were very bad news in the future.

In regard to MontanaMaven, not in this case. I do not support the immigration bill; it is too harsh. One can read my post on my site if desired. I advocate an EXCEPTIONALLY open borders policy, because I believe it makes our country stronger, and less white, which is a good thing, given the historical voting and attitude trends of many white Americans.

I would not occupy Iran, if I was to invade, I would decaptitate the regime and leave power in the hands of the best and the brightest I referenced earlier. Start with the Nobel Prize recipient from 2003, she needs a seat at the table. They could fully handle the responsibilities, and would gave favor by the abrupt departure of US troops.

I reject the premise. I don't think you need that many troops, and we could certainly borrow some from Iraq. It's not as though I'm gung-ho for invading Tehran, it's that I do not think I would prove as bad an idea as some suggest. We would not need a WWII army, either.

A good discussion, all. I hope you do not see me as a troll, trying to bog down an excellent blog. I mean nothing of the kind. I've posted all my information for any to see. The time is now 18:07, so I need to run along. I extend an invite to check out the blog, you needn't worry, the other two participants are much closer to your line of thinking.

Best to all of you.

Posted by LMD03 | June 5, 2007 11:06 AM

Re: "war on terror", it's easy to find lots of ways that the world/country/politics/whatever of today are worse off than at various periods previously considered bad, but it sort of seems to me like this one specific issue isn't one of them, which is a small ray of sunshine. Can any of the old fogeys around here comment on whether a serious presidential candidate was attacking the idea of the "war on drugs" within five years of when the phrase was coined? Or the war on crime, or even the war on poverty? Well, those aren't perfectly analogous cases, and maybe Bush's incompetence and unpopularity is making things possible in this area that wouldn't normally be, but still.

Posted by Cyrus | June 5, 2007 11:07 AM

I couldn't agree more. This early interplay I immeadiately thought to be the critical moment of the debate - and made clear that the Edwards campaign is about more than just nuanced political posturing - it is about rejecting this absurd and surrealistic prism through which the Republicans and so many of the media lapdogs have forced us to view the world - to our great sorrow, detriment and growing weakness.

Edwards is the only real hope.

Posted by Boxer7 | June 5, 2007 11:10 AM

Obama should take note: this is what a new kind of politics actually looks like, as opposed to just saying all the time that you're going to bring us a new kind of politics.

Posted by Jose Peterson | June 5, 2007 11:11 AM

sometimes, I wish all of those Hillary supporters who call me a purity troll for not supporting her and accuse me of buying into Republican attacks would for once take a look in the mirror and realize what hypocritical scumbags they are.
Posted by soullite

I'm so confused by this. Who are you talking about, and why are they hypocritical scumbags, exactly? This just seems out of left field.

Posted by Cyrus | June 5, 2007 11:12 AM

"I would not occupy Iran, if I was to invade, I would decaptitate the regime and leave power in the hands of the best and the brightest I referenced earlier."

That was precisely the plan that the Bush administration espoused for Iraq. How's that working out for you?

Idiot....

Posted by PaulB | June 5, 2007 11:28 AM

Cyrus: He's referring to the fact that Hillary herself is buying into Republican attacks to posture against Edwards.

Posted by Tim P. | June 5, 2007 11:30 AM

"I don't think you need that many troops"

That's what Donald Rumsfeld thought about Iraq. That worked out well, didn't it?

"and we could certainly borrow some from Iraq."

Because, heaven knows, things are going so well there and our troops are so well-rested that shifting them to Iran will be a walk in the park.

"It's not as though I'm gung-ho for invading Tehran, it's that I do not think I would prove as bad an idea as some suggest."

That's precisely what was said about objections to attacking Iraq. Sorry, but I have to agree with the earlier commenters who stated that you basically disqualified yourself from serious discussion. Come back when you've done your homework and shown some signs that you've actually learned something from the events of the past four years.

Posted by PaulB | June 5, 2007 11:31 AM

Personally, what I found fascinating about the Edwards' attack was the virulence of the revulsion that many left of center Beltway pundits reacted with.

Ezra Klein, Joe Klein, and John Judis were all semi-horrified by it.

But by far, the best reaction was Dana Goldstein's over at TAPPED:

His choice to come out swinging on the Iraq supplemental when he actually agreed with Obama and Clinton's votes appeared quibbling and amateurish, and for me, at least, was uncomfortable to watch.

The attack caused pundits to literally squirm in their seats.

Eugene Robinson had the correct reaction

John Edwards had a point: Where have Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama been these past few weeks while others were shouting to the rooftops about the worsening debacle in Iraq? Sudden attacks of laryngitis? Cat got their tongues?

...

Still, Edwards is asking the right questions. If the war in Iraq is the most urgent issue facing the country -- and both Clinton and Obama said bringing the troops home would be their first priority as president -- then why aren't theirs the loudest, clearest, most eloquent voices in opposition to Bush's tragic misadventure? Each is asking for the opportunity to lead the nation. Shouldn't each be showing some leadership on the war?

Posted by Petey | June 5, 2007 12:42 PM

OK - I'm going to broach a touchy subject . . .

I really am glad that the Democratic leadership is coming together and agreeing that Iraq is a debacle. And, I would love for us to leave or mostly leave. But, I wish candidates would discuss what they see as our role and military posture in the Middle East.

Would we keep a ton of troops in Saudi Arabia? Would we try to reinvigorate the Peace Process in Israel and Palestine? Do we have plans for dealing with Iran and Syria? I know a lot of these don't have pat answers. I guess my biggest question is - where would we station troops, and about how many?

Posted by MDtoMN | June 5, 2007 12:50 PM

The war in Iraq is making us all a little crazy but, from the vantage point of old age, a caution about what we do when the Bush nightmare is over: After Nixon, we elected a Southern Democrat with nice manners who turned out to be clueless about the real world.

What I see in Edwards is the same kind of ambition and emptiness, plus a negligence lawyer's willingness to say anything to win. My take:

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/06/ambulance-chasing-to-white-house.html

Posted by Robert Stein | June 5, 2007 1:01 PM

What I see in Edwards is the same kind of ambition and emptiness, plus a negligence lawyer's willingness to say anything to win.

Right. Because when a little girl's intestines are sucked out by a drain, it takes a certain type of person to muster up some outrage.

Posted by MasonMcD | June 5, 2007 1:13 PM

There is a war on terror, but we're not fighting it. Or rather, there are dedicated people fighting it, but they have little to do with the current regime.

It's a bad term (a good bumper sticker) but I'd rename the WOT the War on Asymmetric Threats. More accurate, worse bumper sticker.

The thing that's ridiculous is that folks talk about fighting terror and right away segue into fighting nations. It's absurd and stupid and a prime example of searching where the light is better.

Asymmetric threats are a problem precisely because you can't invade the enemy and depose their ruler because they have no nation and, in many cases, no ruler. That makes them the 'new kind of foe' talked about after 9/11--but quickly forgotten.

The big success of the neocons is that they've managed to frame the WOT debate purely in terms of nations. Iraq! Iran! North Korea! All right, smartypants, what country would YOU invade, hah?

Iraq was not a terrorist threat Iran is not and North Korea is not. They're nations. When asked why they're threats, the answer always is that, having spends decades and billions of dollars to acquire these weapons, they would give them away to actual terrorists.

The GWOAT needs to be fought--but we need to fight the enemy, not nations we find convenient. This can be done in two steps:

1) Neutralize the actual terrorists.
2) Dismantle the system whereby terrorist groups are given sanctuary and support.

There should be a debate on how to best accomplish these two, but one thing is undeniable: the Bush admin has ignored 1) and done precisely the opposite on 2).

Posted by pbg | June 5, 2007 1:18 PM

"Right. Because when a little girl's intestines are sucked out by a drain, it takes a certain type of person to muster up some outrage."

I think his 1998 Senate campaign definitely taught smart Republicans that the 'ambulance chaser' card was not wise to play against Edwards.

But guys with Nixon nostalgia are not the smartest Republicans, quite obviously.

Posted by Petey | June 5, 2007 1:22 PM

Any chance you could use "courage" instead of "balls"? Sounds schoolmarmy, but especially now that one of the candidates has broken the testes barrier, it would be nice for pundits to eschew garden-variety sexist language choices. I don't think you lose anything with the replacement.

Posted by Wrongshore | June 5, 2007 1:24 PM

So much foolishness to unpack, and so little time. So I'll take just one paragraph:

Once more with that language, "disqualified him or herself." Are we so certain?

This is probably just a little quirk of mine, but when someone seems completely oblivious to the fact that they're making precisely the same arguments for attacking Iran that marched us into the flaming tar pit of Iraq then, yeah, unfair as it may seem to the speaker, I feel their belief they have a right to be taken seriously should evoke gales of derisive laughter.

Think of how heroic such an action would seem to the entire Arab world, no?

No.

You can fly logical loop-the-loops until you disappear up your own bunghole, but the "action" you're proposing won't be seen as anything but what it is: a 21st Century superpower launching an unprovoked attack on a poorly-armed, numerically and economically inferior opponent. For all your high-minded rhetoric, the Arabs will know it for yet another flailing attempt to steal a country's resources while crushing any thought of resisting our global hegemony.

"Heroic"? Surely you jest.

I doubt the current Likud government would destroy Tehran, Bibi, yes, this one, no.

Since when did zombie Gandhi rise from the grave and take over the Likud?

Remember, everybody, LMD made this statement in the context of Israel (with an estimated 200 to 300 nukes in its possession, some of which are submarine-based) getting nuked. Any government that failed to retaliate to a nuclear attack with its own nukes would literally be torn to pieces by its own citizens. And quickly replaced with a government that could and would turn every city in Iran into radioactive rubble.

I repeat, are you insane?

Especially in light of current events, anyone who can blithely burble about "decapitating" Iran's leadership, after which it's free ponies for everyone and no messy occupation necessary, is so stunningly clueless as to be self-evidently unserious.

Posted by grouchomarxist | June 5, 2007 1:33 PM

I don't agree whatsoever.

You and I know that the right holds onto this notion like a national security blanket, and trying to rip it out of their hands is perilous at best.

Hillary, once again, is triangulating. Why? Because of precisely this notion. There's no chance in hell that anyone on the right is going to vote for a far-leftist next year, and to think otherwise is out of this world. If she mentions the words "war on terror" once in a while to become the next POTUS, that's exactly what she's going to do.

Do you think anyone on the far left would vote for Bush? Of course not.

The pendulum swung very far to the right since 1994, and it will gradually come back our way. We need the brute force of Edwards and Kucinich, but to ever imagine that they would be the candidate in 08 is foolish, and frankly, shows a lack of knowledge about presidential politics.

Posted by Volum | June 5, 2007 1:38 PM

Think of how heroic such an action would seem to the entire Arab world, no?

No, the guy who nuked historical Palestine (along with the remaining Muslim population of green line Israel if you could somehow do this and not nuke the West Bank and Gaza) would be the villian of the century. Now the guy who nuked US, might be the hero of the century (for about twenty minutes until they, along with everyone in a huge radius was vaporized).

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 5, 2007 3:30 PM

The smart bipartisan pivot here is from the War on Terror (more accurately, the war on Islamic fanaticism") to a foreign policy focus with a primary goal of containing nuclear proliferation. The recent JFK plot, along with similar plots, demonstrates that Islamist nutters without weapons can be dealt with by law enforcement. Islamist nutters with nukes is an unacceptable risk though.

A smart Dem applying this policy would want to get out of Iraq as soon as practical and keep the use of military force (bombings) on the table WRT Iran.

It would have been great if Clinton had bombed North Korea, as he had planned to, but at least North Korean nukes haven't led to a local arms race (yet), mainly because of our nuclear umbrella. Consider the case of the Middle East though: Does our nuclear umbrella cover Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, those two allies who supplied the manpower for 9/11? If not, they would likely feel compelled to get nukes after Iran goes nuclear.

We have been entirely too complacent about nukes, because there hasn't been a nuclear attack on anyone since we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That streak will be in jeopardy if Iran gets nukes.

Posted by Fred | June 5, 2007 4:29 PM

Fred: "It would have been great if Clinton had bombed North Korea, as he had planned to, but at least North Korean nukes haven't led to a local arms race (yet), mainly because of our nuclear umbrella."

Bill Clinton, using diplomacy backed up with the threat of military force, got North Korea to stop producing plutonium.

George Bush, unlike Bill Clinton, was not willing to use military force against North Korea. That is one reason that North Korea resumed plutonium production during the Bush presidency.

I don't think it would have been "great" if either president had bombed North Korea. When you threaten to use military force, the ideal outcome is that you get what you want without actually having to carry out your threat.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | June 6, 2007 1:31 PM