Monday, February 06, 2012

Remember When We Had A Cowboy For President, And War With Iran Was Imminent?

Oh what a difference a D after your name makes:
Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to this week’s The Hill Poll...

“Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal,” the president said in his State of the Union address.


Anonymous said...

Do you think this time there will be weapons of mass distraction?

Do you think we'll be there 10 years?

Do you think it'll cost a trillion dollars?

Darren said...

So war with Iran wasn't what would have been wrong, it would have been President Bush's conduct of the war? Because that's what I get is your silly point.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it was President Bush's hackneyed prosecution of the war in Iraq and his failure to accomplish his objectives that most unbiased (R)s fault him for.

Do you think anyone would be quibbling with Iraq if we had found, say, anything?

It seems the evidence for an attack on Iran is a little more solid. Perhaps that's why more are inclined to support an attack on Iran now rather than your deluded persecuted (R) victimhood story might imply.

Anonymous said...

By the way. What's your silly point?

Your case would be much stronger had Iraq turned out differently. It didn't. You're stuck with your results.

Loni said...

"Nearly half of likely voters"? Doesn't sound like a majority to me.

Darren said...

Is the evidence in Iran more compelling today than it was when people were foaming at the mouth at the prospect of a war with Iran 4 years ago?

Where's the "anti-war crowd" today? The guy they wanted is in the White House, so they're either sitting at home or out complaining in an "occupy" movement somewhere.

The difference is the D after Obama's name.

Anonymous said...

Your panties are in a bunch because the President said he hasn't taken any options off the table? Chillax! He hasn't launched missiles. Geez.

Some of us don't see it as R or D. Only as working and not working. Some of us look to results.

When hundreds of U.S. Marines were killed by a suicide bomber in Beirut, Reagan yanked America’s military out of Lebanon – and didn’t retaliate (Republican hawks complained). He worried about mounting a counter-strike on murky intelligence and the possibility for civilian casualties. Imagine your response if Obama tried an excuse like that.

Darren said...

Your non sequitur notwithstanding, this post is about the continuing hypocrisy of the so-called anti-war left. The weren't anti-war, they were anti-Bush. That's all.

Your excuses and faux explanations don't change that.

Anonymous said...

I'll assure you the 'anti-war' crowd is still there. Go down to 16th and J or 16th and L on Friday afternoon. They don't care who is in office.

Non sequitur? I thought the left-right tit for tat was the point of the post.

You also conveniently left out the remainder of the quote so *your facts* would fit *your* narrative.

“But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.”

I don't think anyone is wanting a 10 year trillion dollar war. *If* Obama chooses to engage the Iranians militarily and finds no nuke program and gets bogged down in 10 years of nation building the scorn and derision you so wish to heap on the President will be justly deserved. All that has been done to date is imposing the strongest multilateral economic sanctions on Iran since 1979. You'll just have to wait a bit longer or risk looking intemperate and peevish. Oh, wait... never mind.

mazenko said...

Neither the Bushes nor Reagan stopped any country determined to get the bomb. We didn't stop India or Pakistan or North Korea, and we won't go to war with Iran.

Iraq was an entirely different situation in terms of its government, its people, its military, and its bargaining power. And invading a place to "find WMDs" but also conveniently depose a ruthless dictator feared by all his citizens is much different than invading and deposing the Iranian government.

It's the same thing with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Think about it, D. We know they both harbored Al Qaeda, and in many ways Pakistan did more to fund them. But we invaded the Afghans while we let Pakistan get the bomb. If you don't see the difference here, you are very, very naive.

Half of voters saying something in a poll doesn't mean we should listen to them, and it doesn't mean they would actually back it in action. They wouldn't. And, half of voters watch Family Guy and eat McDonalds. So let's not pretend we're dealing with foreign policy whizzes here.

They can have their vote on Congressman and President. They don't get a yea or nay vote on going to war.

It's a republic, not a majority rule democracy. And for damn good reason.

Darren said...

I'm not making any value judgements on the pros and cons of a war with Iraq, just pointing out that it's much more OK now with a D president than it was with an R president.

If you want to shuck and drive and try to justify this, go ahead--but I remain unconvinced that you're right, and I assume that you attack me because you fear I'm right.

Darren said...

Hey, look what we find in Salon today:
During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: so much so then when Barack Obama ran for President, he featured these issues not as a secondary but as a central plank in his campaign. But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed, as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll today demonstrates....

Let's remember that Salon is hardly a right-wing outlet....

mazenko said...

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Oh, my goodness. That's a good one. Boy you really got me there.

Neither President Reagan nor Bush nor Clinton nor Obama or Romney or Santorum or Gingrich or Cain or Paul or Bachmann would have or will go to war or enter any military confrontation with Iran over this.


Darren said...

But wait, there's more!
Oh my: Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Gitmo open