The Left's Iran Plan

After a day of bumbling and avoidance yesterday, the Left has rolled out its battle plan for dealing with a nuclear Iraq.

If you want to play a fun game today, you can read the piece at the misnamed AmericaBlog and try to count how many errors are in it. Then go back and count how many stupid statements are in it. The winner gets a free lifetime subscription to Cheat-Seeking Missiles.

Here's their best attempt at a sound bite on their position. More like a sound chomp, chew and swallow:

Iran is ten years away from developing nuclear weapons. There is no discussion of America rushing into another premature war until either Bush leaves office, or Congress is able to provide effective oversight of, and can serve as a counter-balance to, the Bush administration's incompetence.

How do they know Iran is ten years away, and not "sometime early in the next decade" (five years) or two years? They rely on the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (as presented by WaPo). In other words, one of the primary sources for bad information on WMDs in Iraq is suddenly the best source for nukes in Iran. Curious.

From there, the Left's assumption is that Bush the Warmonger will attack soon because he's just too darn impatient for diplomacy. Two points: Bush did diplomacy, and lots of it, before going to war in Iraq. And yes, we should try diplomacy and we will, but as General Thomas McInerney said on Hugh's show yesterday (via Radioblogger):

Remember, Hugh, without a good military option, diplomacy will fail. We also need the will to use that option.

Why is Bush so impatient? Because the president who has made a career of not watching poll numbers is suddenly, inexplicablyl, when he won't be running again, watching poll numbers. Americablog goes on:

There's a second benefit to this strategy as well. Bush can again look presidential - the strong leader taking on more evil dark-skinned false-god worshippers. Bush's hope is that all of this will help the Republicans sagging poll numbers, and thus help them retain the House and Senate in the fall.

I love the way the Left hoots about how the war is so unpopular, then accuses Bush of using the war to win elections. Must be something they're smoking. And they get in a "Bush is Christian" jab at the same time!

But really, they're serious:

His first option is always to declare war, then ask questions later.

That's right! How could I forget so quickly how he declared war on North Korea?! How could I forget how he declared war on this very Iran over a year ago, when they began really stomping on the UN process?

The rest of the babble basically boils down to this: We don't trust the American people, but we think they might finally get as smart as we are.

They want no action (presumably no diplomacy either) until after the election, because they don't think anything should happen in a "Bush controlled" Congress. Nevermind that it's actually an "America elected" Congress; that's just those stupid Americans voting wrong because they're too ignorant to understand our higher intelligence.

(Given his track record on The Hill -- Social Security reform axed, the Dubai deal defeated -- it's a wonder Bush hasn't declared war on Congress.)

Anyway, Americablog thinks we need to just put Iran on hold until we can elect a Jimmy Carter, a man we can trust to strip down our military and intelligence community down to their boxers. But don't worry: He'll have his very own cruise missile he can fire into an abandoned facility in Iran some day in a show of derry-do.

It's a good thing they're dead wrong about the intelligence of the American people.

hat-tip: memeorandum
Tags: Iran, Nuke, Nuclear, Bush, Left, Americablog