Cynical Nation

That could be because they've put themselves into a tough position over Iraq, with their consistent stance that; "It's ALWAYS an illegal war, when we attack a countrey that hasn't threatened/attacked us."

If the Dems embrace a hardline position on Iran, they risk exposing their objections over Iraq as mere partisan bluster.

Of course, I've always believed that their earlier stance, supporting our earlier "UN-opposed and unprovoked" action in the Balkans did just that.

Still, this would be such a blatant reversal of position that many of them might feel that it would completely undermine their previous "principled" stance on Iraq and whatever "credibility" they have left.

THAT, and the fact that there's a fairly vocal segment of that Party (the Sheehan/Moore/Belafonte-wing of that Party) that bleats for "peace at all costs" as the answer to every crisis.

A group, who if we were invaded, would no doubt fall upon their collective knees begging their new masters for mercy.

That "peace at all costs" faction is the albatross around the current Democratic Party's neck.

Barry (and JMK),
You need to follow the news more carefully. The democrats ALREADY have taken a tough stance on Iran.

And what would that be?

Does that "tough stance" include waiting on the UN Security Council to deliver a dozen or so Resolutions for Iran to ignore?

Besides, Blue, as I said, a real "tough stance" would undermine their previous dovish position on Iraq.

After all, Iran hasn't attacked us, nor has it actually "threatened us," and in Iran's case, at least, we have even LESS hard evidence about what programs they're developing and how far along they are, then we had on Iraq!

I know, I know, a real Democrat will say something like, "Consistency is highly overrated. We can oppose Iraq and demand action on Iran, just as we can oppose ethnic profiling of individuals and support profiling nations over the DPW Ports deal."

You don't have to tell me! I saw the inconsistent stances between supporting the "UN opposed and equally unprovoked" action in the Balkans, while opposing the one in Iraq.

It still doesn't make any sense to me.

I guess that's one of the great things about being a Democrat today - you never have to really make any sense.

One of the issues bandied about is that economic sanctions are supposed to be a real threat, but many people today are seeing everything we do as only a precursor to war. We're all gung-ho and gun-shy at the same time, and it's making us look awful.

I have a co-worker who claims the nuclear development in Iran is a smokescreen while they get the oil bourse up and running. He thinks the trading of oil in Euros is a greater threat to us than an Iranian nuke. The Pentagon half agrees with him. Pentagon analysts say that Iran is ten years from a nuke and is likewise extremely "risk averse" and unlikely to use one, even against Israel. They don't comment on the oil bourse. However, the switch from dollars to Euros would be a blow to the American economy as the dollars have to go somewhere and find less of a home. It would cause further devaluation. There has been speculation that the alleged push for a war in Iran is a cover for an attempt to destroy the Iranian oil bourse, which is scheduled to begin operation this very month.

I certainly agree that denominating oil contracts in euros is an economic threat. I'm not yet prepared, however, to dismiss Iran's stated nuclear as a result. To do so, I think, would be foolish.

No, I am not on the train all the way with my co-worker, but I also think a ten-year window for negotiation makes the case for "war now" much less compelling, especially since our house is not in any great order. On the other hand, consider that the nukes may be an excuse but the real purpose of "war now" is not merely a Straussian move towards perpetual war, but rather a move to destroy the oil bourse as it fledges.

This is all speculation, mind you, but I don't think we are getting the real story on Iran from our officials, so it leaves room for spec.