Leaving aside the obvious deficit in public perception on defense that the Democrats face thanks in large to the Dean anti-war crowd, the latest sagas of violence over some lousy cartoons should be enough to convince even the most anti-war lefty-lefts that religious warfare and anti-western sentiments are past any point of reason or dialogue in much of Islam. Jimmy Carter, hardly famous as a warhawk, realized over 25 years ago.

As Carter noted, we also have a right to seek access to the mideast oil reserves as a matter of national security. Incidentally we haven't seen anyone from either the left or right come up with a *viable* solution to our energy quagmire.

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on any mideast involvement will be that intelligence won't be fudged for convenience, the public will actually be able to believe what a Democrat says, and of course there will be viable and realistic plans involved and of course the Democrats will expect the best off to pitch in to the funding pool instead of sitting on the sidelines raiding it in the form of no-bid defense contracts for their biggest donors and family members.

Bombing Iran’s known nuclear facilities might slow—but it won’t prevent—Iran’s eventual entry into the nuclear club. An American attack would be experienced as humiliating and shameful by the Iranian people, thereby increasing the likelihood that they would be (further) polarized into a national consensus against us and our allies, which would probably lead to further Iranian support for terrorist activities abroad of their own borders.

Also when discussing bright ideas like attacking Iran, someone really needs to bring up the budget. We can’t afford it…we've (needlessly, it turns out) shot our military wad on Iraq. Shades of the medieval kings whose endless wars bankrupted their national economies and destroyed their nations.

If we can live with a bombastic, threatening, nuclear North Korea, then we (and Israel) can live with a bombastic, threatening, nuclear Iran.

"We're talking about nuclear weapons in the hands of a state that aids and abets terrorism, with an apocalyptic and unstable leader who is also deeply hostile to us."

Sounds like Rumsfeld (glad-handing Saddam) and Bush (apocalyptic and unstable leader who is also deeply hostile).

And people wonder why others won't vote democrat. Just who are the Dems representing?

Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick" appears to have been supplanted by "Talk tough and cover your weaknesses". The transparent posturing of Clinton and Bayh is about as reassuring as George Bush's flight suit.

Democratics seeking to reassure the American public of our security bonafides in 2008 should instead consider nominating Wesley Clark, whose credibility on the issue is based on experience and expertise, rather than political theatrics.

Here's a novel idea for how Dems can recapture the debate on foreign policy: do what most Americans want and adopt a policy of GLOBAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT! For decades polls have shown that ordinary Americans believe that too much money and resources are spent on weapons, and most also perceive an inverse correlation between military expenditures on the one hand, and peace and security on the other. So like many pressing issues, the public is way ahead, and indeed far to the "left", of both political factions. If the Dems adopt this lunatic "out hawking" strategy---and we can be confident that they will---it will just be one more step towards a world that Americans don't want.

Cynical political strategists like those interviewed in Shapiro's article should not lose sight of the deeply unpopular and extremely dangerous path that they are taking us down.

I believe this article and some the responses to it so far have already been preconditioned by the Republican Spin Machine... anytime we take a stance, left or right, we expect to be easy fodder for the smack-down. Hillary, especially...

The next elections will not be about beating a party. It will be about beating the corrupt electoral machine this party has spawned beyond all historic proportions, one that can isolate marginal states and make untraceable "adjustments" in the vote count as necessary. Bush and Co. should not have a prayer (no pun intended) of winning the national popular vote.

It is not unrealistic to expect the Democratic candidates to proclaim a platform that will resonate with the average voter in one of those "marginal" states, be it Pennsylvania, Missouri, Indiana, Florida or Ohio. A strong stance on national security, even if it's just campaign hot air, will be required, along with anti-Bush stances on the domestic/social issues that are actually most important to the electorate.

Dear All,

Not so long ago in his famous blog Josh Marshall made a point about how awfully abstract all the armchair politicing on the web has allowed us to become. People eating their wheaties in the morning are all the sudden pontificating about how 'we have to use force to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club, because of the civilizational conflict between Islam and modernity.'

So first of all, boys and girls, if we're going to go all grave and Bismarck over our breakfast, let's at least have the guts to use language that owns up to what we're proposing. This is war we're talking about, not some anti-septic, massage-like 'use of force.' It's a brutal bloody conflict that has devastating consequences for everyone involved; and if you don't believe that, take a gander over at the real-world consequences of our last 'use of force' resolution (i.e. Iraq). I myself firmly believe that if we had forced Congress to be grown-ups and talk about a declaration of war, they would have been far more gun shy about our current disaster. (Our very effective counter proliferation scheme might still be in place as well--instead of being discredited by our own use of weapons).

I'm against war on Iran for this reason, but I don't have time to get into that right now. In any event, let's try to avoid being so abstract that we forget what it is that we're really talking about!

John