These republicans can't win the Presidency without a war or

[Raven]

the suggestion of one. Is it me or did I hear a lot of talk about Iran at last night's debate? Aggressive talk with barely a mention of diplomacy. I realize that we have a number of democratic candidates who have said that "all options remain on the table" when it comes to Iran, but the republican talk was different. I heard Chris Dodd speak two weeks ago here in NH and his response to the Iran question was the "all options" response but he went to great lengths to say what a terrible option war with Iran was and that it would be his last option after all else had failed. These republicans last night almost appeared to me to be, well, almost gleeful about the possibility of a military confrontation with Iran. Why is this? I think I have one answer.

The American people, by and large, have not embraced the idea of a world without war. War, in the abstract, is something that turns many people on. They like the saber rattling, it's macho, it makes them feel that America is all-powerful, it, in a strange way, makes people feel safe. It is only when war becomes a fact and people begin to die that the bloom is off the rose. So in this debate, the republicans (except Paul) didn't criticize the war, they critized the way Bush is waging it. And they rubbed their hands in anticipation of a confrontation with Iran. No one talked about diplomacy. For the republican candidates, the possibility or perhaps, the inevitability, of a war with Iran is the next "fear factor" that will bring them votes. Sadly, they know the American people very well.

Aside from Dennis K. and maybe Ron Paul, neither of whom are electable, there is no peace candidate in this race. No one has embraced Dennis' proposal for a Department of Peace. Dennis' own party has not embraced the concept. Chris Dodd, when asked about a Department of Peace, said that there was no need for another government bureaucracy.The American people are not interested in a Department of Peace. Why? Because waging war takes muscle and making peace takes intelligence and we are not a country that does much thinking. The politicians know that. In my mind, the simple difference between the two parties is that the republicans put war near the top of their list of "options" and the democrats put it near the bottom. But neither party will call war out for what it is, abhorant.

So, while Iraq and abortion took center stage last night, waiting just inside the wings was a military confrontation with Iran, our next grim reaper, the real vote getter, the subliminal message of fear. It was right there polking its head from between the flag draped curtains, waiting to be introduced into the full spotlight.

If you watched that debate last night and didn't see Karl Rove behind the teleprompter of each of these candidates, you missed the ballgame. The republican ballgame is fear and war and terror. Rove has given these guys the basic formula for keeping this country under the republican fist for another eight years and now its every man for himself.

[MrModerate]

1. The fact that the leading 'Licans can keep a war option . . .

— Which, in practicality, means a nuclear option — on the table is the most depressing and scary part of the whole deal. Surely someone in the military is advising (or would be advising if any of these guys were to become president) what the implications of a nuclear strike on Iran would be.

I realize the same military types have probably briefed Bush, et al, but Bushco's already confirmed its batshit craziness and resistance to reality ten times over. I had hoped the 'Licans had learned *something* from the Bush administration, namely that the ability to blow something up is not necessarily synonymous with the ability to solve a problem.

If, as you suggest, America hasn't gotten that message either then we — and the world — are screwed, blued, and tatooed.

[applegrove]

2. It was Disraeli who came up with the notion that the only way conservatives

could win elections (since their policies were anti working/middle class) was to use patriotism. And to use patriotism one needs a war on something. Was colonialism they used in his day.