Will any of our Democratic leaders stand up and say that Iran is NOT a

[Poiuyt]

threat?

We're hearing exactly the same kind of rhetoric and saber rattling that went on for the three years before Bush invaded Iraq. And it looks like it's being accepted as fact too, just like Iraq. When Bush says a country is a threat to the US, nobody questions him. They just say, "if you say so. When should we invade?" I guess that Bush speaks with such an air of certainty, that people are afraid to question him. When he talks, he does so with an attitude that says "only a fool would doubt me."

Just once, I'd like to hear someone say, "George, you were wrong about Iraq, could you be wrong about Iran too?"

[Zinfandel]

1. Will the Dem's ever mention Iran going to the Euro as the real reason?

Extremely doubtful!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. This is what really bothers me about the Democratic leadership

They aren't leading. They don't seem to want to investigate the real reasons behind these wars of aggression. Are there any candidates out there who are willing to take a stand? I really think that if we nuke Iran, it could mean the start of a major nuclear war, ruining our planet and killing off humanity. If Dems don't question Bushco now, there may very well be no other chance.

[Dr Fate]

5. Not leading? They kicked out Paul Hackett. That's "leading"- right?

???

[Selatius]

3. Few will. Otherwise, they get called weak and unpatriotic

Democratic politicians are worried about holding onto their seats. Many politicians try to balance principles with power, but often times, when they are put under tremendous pressure, they opt to keep power and abandon principle.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[Dr Fate]

4. Very few. Paul Hackett would have had the credibility to say that.

Instead we will have Harry Reid's "go along gang" again.

[Hope springs eternal]

6. Because the Dems will lose every damn seat they own if they do...

Dems are in a lose-lose situation. Fact is, 80% of this country is liberal to some extent. However, that same precentage is scared shitless of the muslim world. Moderate/light republicans will not stand for anyone denying this threat. And moderates-moderate dems still have the twin towers seared into their memory. Saying Iran isn't a threat is like saying 9/11 never happened to most people. Face it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. Hence the "cartoon riots"

Don't for a moment think that these events haven't been looked upon with favor by Bushco, who has used the situation to paint all Muslims as wild eyed terrorist bogeymen. The mere fact that the voices of moderate Muslims were drown out until long after the initial news dump and American reaction shows that, at the very least, Bushco was taking advantage of a situation to stir up support for nuking Iran.

[demosincebirth]

8. Tell ya' what, I'd hate to see a crazy bunch of Mulahs, in Iran,

with a bunch of nukes. I don't say invade them, but exhaust all peaceful options before we do something drastic.

[underpants]

9. The Bourse Conspiracy

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/021406Wellen.shtml

[genie_weenie]

10. No, because the Democrats are the flip side

of the Republician Coin. Do you trust the Congress to do what is right by the American citizens? Or to cave to re-election pressure brought upon them by special intrest groups?