From the desk of GOP Senators:

We were listening, but we don't give a damn! The voices of reason on foreign policy, the neocons, have spoken and we want war.

Our constituents, AIPAC, have long ago concluded that the U.S. must attack Iran. The longer we postpone attacking Iran, the weaker we appear to the rest of the world. The Likud party has determined that Iran is a real threat and the U.S. must attack Iran to defend Israel.

In spite of our Nevil Chamberlin, who goes by the name of Obama, we must show the rest of the world that we are not afraid to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. It is truly regretable that we did not elect a president last year who actually understands that belligerence, bombast, and war should be our first options, not our last!

As any mid-east oil-producing country can tell you, the best way to keep from being invaded by the USA is to have an atomic bomb.

When the GOP starts talking tough against Iran, it's the same old story: the only real security is oil security, so we need to invade. Can't invade if they have nukes: so much the more reason to invade before they get nukes.

And Iraq has been a great success (for KBR and Blackwater) so let's do it again next door.

War is easy, when YOU don't have to fight it. . .

2010. I wonder if the Republicans will play the national security card and beat the military intervention in Iran drum? That will work well for them with public opinion on our presence in Afghanistan sinking fast.

The Republicans are completely tone deaf and the only way they'll succeed in 2010 is if there's a very low voter turnout.

I think people are just suffering from so much anxiety and stress right now that the last thing they want on their minds is a major war with Iran.

Can't we find some excess uranium laying around somewhere to round out the codpiece of these war mongers?

Invading Iran would be a disaster on every level. As much as neocons would LIKE to invade Iran or use war as a political tool, I hope they realize it is simply not possible. But neocons never seem to be constrained by the possible; they get to start wars and keep their jobs as columnists and defense industry consultants while the rest of America pays for it and other Americans die for it.

And I'm really torn about Iran. I'm a big fan of slowing down nuclear proliferation (a bigger fan than George W. Bush who didn't take it seriously and gave AQ Khan a slap on the wrist), but on the other hand it would be completely mad of Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons aggressively and wholeheartedly.

After the Iraq war, they can not depend on the United States to be a rational actor. Iran is always going to be one election away from being invaded . Thomas Friedman got his wish -- the world now thinks the United States is crazy. And the natural response to a crazy violent person is to arm yourself to the teeth, not gently acquiesce is to all his barked commands.

The best way to prevent any chance of a regime change in Tehran is for western leaders to continue talking about regime change in Tehran, especially with the implication that it may come via the use of force.

Why and when has the GOP decided to be in cahoots with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad?

And do these two rocking chair warriors really believe that the recent 'successes' in Bagdad and Kabul have made regime change an export hit with the Muslim world?

Let me see if I've got this straight: we need to invade Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, but the only way for Iran to prevent such an invasion would be for them to have nuclear weapons.

Josef,

Exactly.

It's a race to see which happens first.

Let me see if I've got this straight: we need to invade Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, but the only way for Iran to prevent such an invasion would be for them to have nuclear weapons.

Bingo. You don't hear the talk about invading North Korea. And they have better missiles, ever more capable nukes, and are 4,000 miles closer to the U.S.A

he insisted that "just the carrot approach does not work with these people,"

"these people" huh?

I'm so glad Kyl has the dehumanizing rhetoric down so well.

Kyl and Bond are war-mongering, anti-democratic fools. We all know that "regime change" is right-wing crazy code for military action. And we all know what a disaster it was the last time the Republicans were able to implement that code.

The current political regime in Iran was elected by the Iranian people. That election was probably no more crooked than was the recent election in Afghanistan. The big difference between the Iranian election and the first G.W. Bush election is that the appeal to the Ayatollah to change it was denied, while the appeal of Bush to SCOTUS to change THAT election was granted.

Kyl and Bond are fools. They oppose democratic elections in Iran; they want to drive the Iranian people even farther to the right and away from moderation. Fools.

We have secret teams already in Iran.

We have diplomatic options.

Bomb, bomb, bombing Iran would be disastrous for the world but a golden opportunity for everyone who earns their bread making bombs, guns, planes, ships, and other military toys.

Perpetuawar exists in Iraq and Afghanistan, why not the whole Mid-East?

War is easy. Peace is hard.

Why is Gates the only influential republican left who seems genuinly reasonable and thoughtful? Anyone have any insight into his worldview and motives and what differentiates him from the more radical republicans, particularly those of his generation? Or I guess another way to think about it is what the hell is wrong with the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the world?

The talking points for Republicans as deemed by the billionaire right wing is to talk about regieme change. There is no thought process by any Senator. It is rote rhetoricfrom the daily e-mail.That makes no sense, it shows the lack of intelligence and integrity of these Senators. Do you want this type os idiocy in control of our country again?

saintzak and kahner have it right by combination. Gates is the only republican left who's thoughtful because he's not worried about his job and correspondingly, doesn't act with a cya mentality. The rest, and I do mean the rest, all think selfishly and without consideration to actual policy results. Bomb Iran is simply a campaign slogan without an actual basis in reality to them.

US Foreign policy. 'Made in Israel'

Not a whisper about the 200-300 nukes that Israel has... enough to take out a fair chunk of the planet. Dead silence... crickets chirping.

The AIPAC controls the congress.
Dead silence... crickets chirping.

The only answer to this (and a host other problems) is public campaign funding.

Dead silence... crickets chirping. We are so screwed.

"Why is Gates the only influential republican left who seems genuinly reasonable and thoughtful?"
Posted by: kahner

Replacing Rumsfeld with Gates was the only good thing Bush did during his whole presidency.

As any mid-east oil-producing country can tell you, the best way to keep from being invaded by the USA is to have an atomic bomb.

As with many of the dilemmas we find ourselves in right now, if the Bush Administration hadn't fucked up by invading Iran's next-door neighbor on a flimsy excuse, Iran wouldn't feel it necessary to spend a huge amount of money on acquiring nukes ASAP. They probably would still have diddled around with it, but they never would have put the amount of resources into it that they have without that push.

Thanks again, Bushies! Heckuva job!

If the Republicans would cut back on their war war rhetoric wrt Afghanistan we might be able to take care of that little matter and exit. Then, if we need to do anything wrt Iran we would at least have the resources and mental focus to do that properly.

Even with nukes Iran is not a serious threat to America and they know it.

The balance of power in the middle east is that Pakistan, India, Israel etc. all disarm their nukes or STFU, rather than tell Iran "you can't have what we have because only we are qualified to have them....just ask America...they gave them to us".

Iran is just trying to protect itself in a nuclear atmosphere.