Word that President Bush continues to keep "all options on the table" to deal with Iran's growing nuclear threat is sure to widen into the next great schism in Democratic foreign policy (such as it is). The far left is reacting predictably, i.e., averse to any military conflict even when confronted with nuke-wielding terrorist lunatics. (It should also be noted that this is news not because it iterates any change in policy, but because the calendar magnifies the importance of any utterance during August.)
Some highly visited blogs simultaneously downplay Iran's obvious march to nuclear weaponry but bafflingly (if rightly) reach new heights of moral dudgeon when two teenagers are hanged for being gay.
While that is chicken-dove stance of the loony left, it should not be forgotten that more mainstream Democrats and their allies were critical of Bush last year for dealing with Iraq before Iran:
Sen. Barack Obama: "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"
Senator John Kerry: The Bush Administration has not "been tough on the [Iran] issue … which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and again just like I said with North Korea, you have to keep your eye on the target."
Howard Dean: ""The United States has to ... take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they're funding terrorism."
Richard Clarke: "If you take the case of Iran, its nuclear program is far more advanced than Iraq's was. There would have been far more grounds to invade there (Iran)."
The Washington Post (even more recently): "[T]here is no excuse for Europe and the United States not to act in tandem; neither should they take any option off the table. It is no longer possible to consider the Iranian nuclear threat as anything but deadly serious." (Sound familiar?)
So it is easy to predict that the Scoop Jacksons of the modern Democratic Party, who periodically emerge from their slumber for moments of lucidity, will be hustled right back into their witness-protection programs once there is a chance of any substantive action against Iran. As soon as anything happens that might redound to the benefit of George Bush (to say nothing of freedom), the voices of strength and centrism within the party will be overwhelmed by the neo-isolationists of the left.
By the way, does anyone else find it odd that the far left bases their predictions of where the "next" Bush war will occur on who has the most oil? If Iraq were (as they postulate endlessly) really all about oil, then how come it now costs $66 a barrel?