Nice post, buddy. Now we maybe can get somewhere.

I don't agree with your equation of Bill Clinton's Iran resolutions with Hillary's current voting record. A lot has changed since then.

Whether or not it was forseeable that George W. Bush would use the Iraq resolution as a deterrant or as a basis to launch an aggressive war for profit (though I think it was clear the Bush administration was going to war regardless of what Hussein did or said), the administration's conduct following that time should make it clear that any subsequent resolutions against other nation states should be taken seriously. These guys WILL go to war at the drop of a hat. For this reason, I am really concerned with Hillary's readiness to go along and attempt to keep up with the chicken-hawks in the administration. It's not a matter of being strong, it's a matter of being smart; she's not ever going to be able to out-military the Republicans, and with a leader like her, I question our ability to return to a normal nation, rather than a fearful military machine, ready to blast anything anywhere in the world, whether it poses a threat to us or not.

I believe that the last thing this nation needs is more saber-rattling "tough talk" aimed abroad.

I must admit, I'm not as familiar with Barack's voting record as you are; however, I'm more impressed with him personally. He seems more level headed, less likely to resort to empty "tough talk" regarding military action, and I think as a president he would be less likely to use our military as an answer in itself, rather as a deterrant, like it should be.

I am not naive; I know a lot of what any politician says is BS, and I would much prefer John Edwards. But it appears that we are down to Hillary v. Barack here. The former disappoints me, the latter hasn't really done either. But based on what he's done in Illinois I think he's competent enough.

Sounds to me like it had the potential to be the same thing. At least this time it appears to be downplayed, and will hopefully not produce any violent results. It is surprising in the current hyper-military climate that cooler heads could ever prevail in the Middle East region.

I'd really love to know who provided the mysterious voice of the "Iranians." Sounds suspiciously like someone trying to supply "what a terrorist would say." If it really is some prankster, they have a very well-developed dark sense of humor...

You really have to be a kool-aid drinker

to entertain the idea that five Iranian speedboats could credibly threaten a US Navy warship.

Do you remember the USS Cole? A speedboat loaded with explosives, rammed into the side of a warship could pose a significant threat. No question.

I doubt the Iranian Navy would engage in such tactics, but you would have to agree the threat is there. My problem is in cases such as this one, where the actual threat seems to be trumped up out of nothing. I sincerely doubt the Iranian Government is as suicidally insane as they are portrayed by the current administration. We've been over this road with them before in the Persian Gulf, and they've always had their asses handed to them.

With the current administration clearly spoiling for a fight, I'd doubt the Iranians would be so stupid as to hand them a valid self-defense pretext on a silver platter like this.

There will be overblown threats:

When are you pathetic liberals going to wake up to the fact that we are fighting a war on TERROR!?!

Straw arguments:

You can surrender to the terrorists if you want, but I'm going to fight for my country.

And probably personal insults:

Greenwald is an idiot. I can't believe I even bother to read this tripe.

Fire away.