For those who have seen the moniker "I/P," it means "Israeli/Palestinian" and is usually mentioned when a flame-war between otherwise allied Kossacks has occurred. I thought I would mention that because I had to google it to figure that out...
Now. What the two sides can agree on:
After years of supporting the Bush administration's policy in the Middle East, a growing number of Israelis are openly criticizing the United States for creating more, not less, danger for Israel.
Israeli experts contend that American policies have destabilized Iraq, emboldened anti-Western forces from Iran to Lebanon and paved the way for militant Islamists to gain control of the Palestinian Authority.
Does this mean Joe Lieberman does NOT think America should attack Iran now? Unfortunately no, see below, but it does work to isolate his fellow neo-cons...
The conclusion that the United States has made Israel less safe and the growing criticism of Bush administration policy are ironic, to put it mildly. [Link]
That would be the mother of all understatements... but there's more...
Some argue that without the threat from Saddam, the international community is better positioned to deal with Iran.
What does that mean, to "deal" with Iran? Joe, I wonder if you are the "some" being straw manned about...
Methinks that the above "some" expert would be... you guessed it... a neo-con and maybe even Joe himself!...
Could the naval buildup in the Persian Gulf, including the just-announced Patriot missile unit deployment to the area, the first such deployment since the Iraq war started in 2002, have anything to do with how the neo-cons, led by aptly-named Dick Cheney, plan to "deal" with Iran?
I would suggest to this McClatchy staff writer that he make a distinction between his "experts"... those who are insane, laser-focused on promoting political funders' interests (i.e. oil, pharmaceutical, military industrial complex), who are imperialistic, evil, Hitleresque warmongers...and everyone else.