Replies

Because Hillary is accepting donations from pro-Iranian Hardliner groups, and is only concerned about being elected President.

My point, which I admit not making strongly enough, is that if Hillary is taking a hawkish stance on the war at this moment, then the intelligence they have available to them is pretty conclusive as to how grave the situation in Iran is.

The fact is that either somebody that isn't Israel has to hit Iran by March, or Israel has to hit Iran by March. We are OUT OF TIME in terms of fomenting insurrection among students and moderates. 12 guys in Iran are in charge, and they mean to start a war.

This is going to be a mess, and the Democrats are starting to realize that all this anti-war rhetoric paralyzed the current administration's ability to do anything about it. Even Harry Reid appologized the other day for smearing 27 Republican Senators in a letter he wrote about ethics.

Kinda funny for a guy under Justice Department investigation for violating ethics and other laws.

...then the intelligence they have available to them is pretty conclusive as to how grave the situation in Iran is.

Aw, Cmon! We all know Bush is just making this up to start another war to get the attention away from Abramhoff!

/sarcasm

You might be on to something here....

The left has painted us into a corner....selling the need to be proactive against Iran will be very difficult...especially given that few Americans really understand what is going on and the consequences of doing nothing.

Honestly, the President has to tell the citizenry that we are going to act to deter a possible WMD threat from a nation that hasn't directly used force outside its borders. Why is that more of a threat than what Iraq posed?

Most on this board understand the reality of a nuclear Iran....However, most Americans don't (and won't), and given the flaming that has occurred over Iraq, will find it difficult to justify unilateral US aggression.

All thanks to the DNC....