* Bush Derangement Syndrome

Yes, I’m asking two questions: are you in favor of invading Iran? Are you in favor of nuking Iran?

I’m unsure of what you believe the WH’s position is and thought your non-partisan opinion may be interesting.

Thanks.

If he does nothing and Iran nukes Israel, well , then everyone piles on him for not stopping them.

If he does something , the olllie will sit here and bemoan the fact that some americans died to stop poor old harmless Iran.

I am actually starting to hope for democratic wins, just to be able to sit on the other side and watch the democrats preside over the destruction of the civilized world in favor of the followers of a 12th century religion.

While we can only express our opinion, I also agree attacking Iran is not a real option, nor should it be. The last thing we need now is another military commitment while we are still fully committed in Iraq.

Actually, if the government wasn’t preparing for posible war with Iran, I would think of it as nearly criminal negligence. After all, Iran is openly hostile to the United States and rattling its saber as loudly as possible. And of all the countries in the Middle East it seems both the most dangerous and the most hostile to US interests.

So, yeah, I want us to be ready for a war with Iran.

–|PW|–

No. If merely because a draft would be political suicide. Charlie Rangel and Democrats talked about it for as long as it could be used to get Bush and then stopped thereafter.

And of course weak politicians (respond to perceived public pressure.

And I don’t see us doing anything in Iran as long as we are tied down in Iraq (opinion). It may well be that any public talk is aimed at encouraging allies to become more supportive.

I will say that I hope we do a better job on the intelligence in Iran than we did in Iraq. No Pres can make good decisions with bad intelligence.

Dugger

Let’s say that the Draft was not brought up as an issue and people were not expressing their concern. Do you think that it is possible that they would have gone ahead and instituted a draft? But since they were on record as saying no draft that they hesitiate.
I mean come on you have to have a better idea how these games are played don’t you? If people had reacted to the Iraq war scenario like they are to Iran there is a good chance we would not have gone…
Or am I being naive to think that politicians are not emboldened to act or not act when a large group of citizens show support or concern over issues.

Zappa had a really cool mustache

Would suggest actually coming up with an issue before you spaz out over a non issue. This is reminiscent of the election campaign draft scare. Progressives were constantly talking about how Bush would just have to have a draft andf guess what, there wasn’t one and there won’t be one.

If you are going to manufacture false issues, at least make them interesting.

Dugger

But I’m thinking that TomPaine.com has a spot-on take with this…

First they excoriate the Democrats for being not but ‘Bush Lite’…

And ends with this rather forlorn statement (emphasis mine):

One recent poll  by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee no less revealed that on issues of national security Americans favor Democrats over Republicans by 41 to 39 per cent, more than erasing the double-digit gaps that have long plagued Democrats on this issue. That, alone, ought to be evidence enough that the Dems can be far bolder than what turns up in the  Real Security document. Sadly, because it lacks the bold thinking to distinguish them from the Bush worldview, the Democrats latest paper, like the administration s own  National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (November 2005) will soon be forgotten.

We don’t need any more caskets flying home…

And the prisons for tortuing children? Shooting at our planes? Starving the populace while Saddam, the russians and french got rich? Ignoring the UN for 12 straight years?
We had Saddam Hussein contained (Don’t believe me? Ask General Zinni. I know he’s only a Marine general with a chest full of medals and George Bush defended the shark-infested waters of the Gulf during Vietnam, but try him out anyway). Yes, he was horrible to his own people, so are a lot of other world leaders. I thought liberals were supposed to be the starry eyed unrealistic ones. Guess I was wrong. We were – and are – fighting a global war on Al Qaeda and those affiliated with them. As such, it was a clear detriment to that effort to get sucked in to building a new country in Iraq. Our first priority should be to hunt down and kill AQ wherever they are while also supporting the destabilization of the bad guys and providing aide to more democratic, pro-US governments. I love how all of a sudden you guys are in love with UN resolutions.

And why is it that the democrats that you trusted enough to vote for for president didn t think it was possible to  remove Saddams WMD s without occupying the country. I mean, these guys, that you trusted and rooted for, who SAW the intel and KNOW the capabilities of the armed forces& .why do you think THEY didn t speak up?
The Dems did not get the same intel as Bush, and while I thought they should have voted against giving Bush the authority anyway, they did not receive a true assement of his capabilities nor the post-war planning. Many Democrats supported the coercive inspections concept pushed by the Carnegie Endownment for Intl Peace, had we gone that route we would have found no WMDs without invading and occupying Iraq.

And what happens when Iran drops a nuke on Israel? What do WE do? What if they just THREATEN to drop a nuke on israel?
There’s no reason we can’t use force against Iran, but the idea of dropping a nuclear missile on them is insane. Most estimates say, even with uranium enrichment, Iran is at best 10 years from a deliverable nuke. Even so, Israel has a great air force, and I’m sure if they felt threatened they wouldn’t hesitate to use it – and we’d back them up.

Like I said before Ollie, you are the master of 20/20 hindsight, unfortunately that isn t leadership.
Everything I ‘m saying now I said 4 years ago. I’m not brilliant, I just have some common sense.

Brand Democrat: We Had A Clue Before Clues Were “In”

Debates:

LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? [...]

Bush: [...] On Iran, I hope we can do the same thing, continue to work with the world to convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions.

We worked very closely with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering the message to the mullahs that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs.

The IAEA is involved. There’s a special protocol recently been passed that allows for inspections.

I hope we can do it. And we’ve got a good strategy.

KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren’t willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing. [...]

Bush: [...] Secondly, he said — my opponent said where he worked to put sanctions on Iran — we’ve already sanctioned Iran. We can’t sanction them any more. There are sanctions in place on Iran.

And finally, we were a party to the convention — to working with Germany, France and Great Britain to send their foreign ministers into Iran.

Kerry: [...] but I first want to say something about those sanctions on Iran.

Only the United States put the sanctions on alone, and that’s exactly what I’m talking about.

In order for the sanctions to be effective, we should have been working with the British, French and Germans and other countries. And that’s the difference between the president and me.

And there, again, he sort of slid by the question.

And more from the debate

Kerry: [...] KERRY: Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he’s been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea’s gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. [...]
[...] But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, “Here, let me show you the photos.” And DeGaulle waved them off and said, “No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.”

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we’ve done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous — Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.

Good job guys!

I don’t like the idea of a nuclear armed Iran (or anyone else bringing new nukes to the table, actually), but there are far better ways of dealing with the situation than another region destabilizing, terrorism encouraging, economy destroying, massive casualty inducing war.

I’m a little behind on this, but just in case some of you haven’t heard yet Iran has announced the fact that it is enriching uranium. The a-typical response from Demcorats? Bush/Republicans are evil and must be stopped. As I…

And the prisons for tortuing children? Shooting at our planes? Starving the populace while Saddam, the russians and french got rich? Ignoring the UN for 12 straight years?

And why is it that the democrats that you trusted enough to vote for for president didn’t think it was possible to “remove Saddams WMD’s” without occupying the country. I mean, these guys, that you trusted and rooted for, who SAW the intel and KNOW the capabilities of the armed forces….why do you think THEY didn’t speak up?

And what happens when Iran drops a nuke on Israel? What do WE do? What if they just THREATEN to drop a nuke on israel?

Like I said before Ollie, you are the master of 20/20 hindsight, unfortunately that isn’t leadership.

“Brand Democrat: We always know the right answer, 3 years after the fact”

Huh? Pedro, are you serious? Are you asking if the first excuse for going to war had panned out, then would Oliver think the war was okay? You mean if we had proven our intelligence was reliable? That Iraq was actively working on a means of causing massive casualties in some potential future conflict? That weapons inspectors had failed and the U.N. was wrong? Would we have been able to argue effectively for increased foreign support, even from those initially opposed to the invasion, thereby easing the strain on our troops? Just what are you asking?

Frank, please supply the reason and stop leaning on the “all lefties (or at least Oliver) hate Bush so everything they say lacks credibility.”

At this point, everything these clowns do is suspect. Period. What has this administration done to build trust EVER. Where have they done anything other than lie, suppress, and distort? Iraq? Global Warming? Social Security? Medicaid? Katrina? Wiretapping? 9/11? Do I need to continue?

Ae we actually trying to debate something or just trolling?

Frank: It’s not just what Bush is for, I’m against. I’m against stupid things. If Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or John Kerry supported dropping a nuke on Iran, they’d be idiots too.

Rheinhard: That’s pretty accurate. Bush thinks he’s Bruce Willis or Nicolas Cage in a Bruckheimer flick.

It has served the Democrat Party so well, so far.