I guess the article is saying that war with Iran is a done deal if any Republican is sent to the White House, but there's lots of reason to believe that if Clinton is elected we'd still go to war with Iran anyway.

I'm totally not convinced. While the GOP candidates are trying to out-macho each other as to who would be quicker on the trigger, I don't read any of the Democrats that way.

Raimondo looks at what he imagines is in the background and not just what is on TV.

OK, but Oswald, lets be fair here, can you PROVE anything IN the article? This is an opinion piece, not a fact finding mission.

We can discuss, but when someone disagrees with an opinion, to suddenly call for proof of that person's opinion is kind of unfair.
Bottom line: You agree with the author. I don't.

I also pointed out that while Senator Clinton gets all the attention by the author, the GOP candidates are stating far more radical approaches to dealing with Iran. So why wasn't the article about them?

Not at all. I merely pointed out the one-sided nature of the article, and how I disagreed with its central point.

I don't know why the discussion suddenly had to become contentious.

Is your precious article above criticism?

Here's a comparison between Obama and Bush statements on Iran (and Giuliani sounds almost exactly like Bush). Tell me that you don't discern a vital difference.

Obama on Iran, from today's New York Times:

In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops...

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."

Bush speaking to the Heritage Foundation:


...on September the 11th, 2001...our nation was attacked by a brutal enemy that despises freedom, that rejects tolerance, that kills the innocent in the pursuit of a dark vision. These folks believe that it's okay to subjugate women and indoctrinate children and murder those who oppose their harsh rule. They have stated clearly they want to impose this ideology on millions. They're at war with America because they hate what they stand for -- and they understand we stand in their way.

We must take the words of the enemy seriously. The terrorists have stated their objectives. They intend to build a totalitarian Islamic empire -- encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialog with those they call infidels -- a category that includes America, the world's free nation [sic], Jews, and all Muslims who reject their extreme vision of Islam. They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the free world. Again, hear the words of Osama bin Laden last year: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

Given the nature of the enemy and the words of its leaders, politicians who deny that we are at war are either being disingenuous or naive. Either way, it is dangerous for our country. We are at war -- and we cannot win this war by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist.

Obama is clearly antiwar and I admire and salute him. The original article, however, dealt with Hillary Clinton-not Obama.

OswaldTheOsprey