The
New York Times writes:
Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.
Don't worry, the GOP knows that the Lieberman DLC wing of the Party will push an invasion just like they pushed to invade Iraq. The same people who shit the bed in Iraq aren't planning to unshit the bed, but to shit the bed in Iran. The DLC will be there for Bush when it comes to making the case.
DLC'er Hillary Clinton:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.
See, DLC poster child Hillary Clinton has been pushing (WaPo lede, 1/20/06) the same thing the GOP is worried about not being pushed. And DLC'er Mark Warner has demonstrated his DLC foreign policy is somewhere between stoopid and needing to be watered.
DLC spokesperson Bull Moose is already laying the case for DLC members to support invading Iran (just like he tried to do with ending Social Security). His plan seems to be blaming the people who were right about Iraq:
The lefties loathing of Lieberman is deep and obsessive. It is ultimately not just about the Iraq war. [...]
There is little anger expressed toward the Jew-hating leader of Iran. The nutroots and activists rarely articulate any rage toward the Jihadists. All of their passion and hatred is directed toward the Administration and anyone who is considered as aiding and abetting them.
Yes, that seems to be the DLC line on Iran. If you don't "rage" against Iran, then you are getting in the DLC's way when it comes to the next war. So, where do you stand. Do you "rage" against Iran?
edited to change title due to weird format issues