Wonderful trip down memory lane:) Thanks for the chuckles.
It does point something out that we can't underestimate about this enemy. They are STILL out of touch with reality- it is the only way they cling to their defiant rants like the ones Iran is currently broadcasting. The problem with these people- they BELIEVE their lies.
The Iranians are a whole different cup of tea. They have learned that Europeans, Democrats and many Republicans's can be intimidated by these rants (they still remember Jimmy fondly and read Al Gore and John Kerry's press releases today, which are indistinguishable from Jimmy's foreign policy).
And, Iran's record of success is nothing to sneeze at. They are still in power 25 years after storming the US Embassy and about to become a nuclear power. Why should they imagine the US would grow a pair today?
The whole game here is to create enough uncertainty to stall until 2008, until a dem is elected president. After that, a nuclear, Islamist Iran will establish effective control of the middle east. An invulnerable base for terrorism is what they want and what they will probably get.
The likely result after that is a series of dirty bomb attacks on western countries that are difficult to tie to Iran--it will be done thru Iranian proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Eventually, though, we will be forced to act. Iran will use nukes on our troops and carriers when we do. And we will respond in kind.
Thus, our next dem president will likely be the person who sets in motion the first use of nuclear weapons agains Americans and the world's two-way Nuclear War. Israel probably does not survive except as cinders. Much of Iran will be devastated, also.
That same dem will also halt all work on missle defense and, if the Dean branch of the party has it's way, disable our existing capabilities in that regard, leaving us and Europe vulnerable to nuclear weapons launched by a bunch of barbarians.
That's why it's important not to elect a dem in 2008. The R's suck. But the dems . . . well, suck isn't nearly strong enough and I don't think the characterization I would use would be appropriate on a public forum--maybe 'objectively treasonous' will pass.