Josh Micah Marshall gets it (read the whole thing):
The prospect of a nuclearized Iran seems far more perilous to me than anything we faced or seemed likely to face with Iraq. But for those of us trying to think through how to deal with this situation, we have to start from the premise that there is no Iran Question, or whatever you want to call it. There’s only how to deal with Iran with this administration in place.
Do you trust this White House’s good faith, priorities or competence in dealing with this situation?
Based on everything I’ve seen in almost five years the answer is pretty clearly ‘no’ on each count. To my thinking that has to be the starting point of the discussion.
Kevin Drum, on the other hand, seems to be preparing to be Charlie Brown again:
At some point it seems likely that the choice George Bush will offer the nation regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions is either (a) leaky and ineffective sanctions or (b) air strikes. I don’t like this choice, but that’s probably what we’re going to get anyway.
Of course, you never know. Maybe diplomacy will work and Iran will back down. But just in case it doesn’t, Dems would be wise to start thinking about whether (a) or (b) — or some hypothetical (c) — is the right policy.
Pro-war mouthpieces are going to say something like “partisan politics is much less important than terrorist threats against the United States, and the Democrats are behaving disgracefully”. But this is garbage. All through history, demagogues have pumped up foreign threats for partisan advantage, and George W. Bush and his claque are as bad as anyone ever has been. Most of what Bush has done in Iraq has been dubious from foreign-policy or military points of view, but it’s worked brilliantly as demagoguery.
The man’s a liar who ruins everything he touches, and no one should ever take anything his administration says at face value.