I only ask because so many opponents of the Iraq War proclaimed they were really just interested in confronting an imminent threat and they were not simply ultra-pacifists to the degree that they'd rather see us lose than tarnish our image by fighting. So this piece is quite enjoyable in a sick sort of way:
Many critics of the war in Iraq tried to insulate themselves from accusations of pacifism by asserting that they would back military action if it were a real threat like, say, North Korea.
Well, now we've arrived at the brink of a threat more pressing than North Korea, creating a real honesty test for the people who made themselves feel better by offering up a hypothetical threat that they would actually favor responding to.
Anyone hiding behind the North Korea facade needs to step forward and get behind the possibility of acting against a nuclear Iran.
So after letting the Europeans dress up in their formal surrenderin' suits for three years now, with nothing to show for their efforts but an Iran under control of a certifiable psycho on the verge of having usable nuclear weapons, I have to ask one question.
Is this threat imminent enough for you? Well?
Can we at least agree that we cannot let Iran get nuclear weapons? Just agree on that. Is that so hard? And then we can quickly debate our options and how much time we have to prevent that which we agree is the worst possible outcome. And if it makes you feel better, it won't help President Bush's reelection campaign since he cannot run again.
