And how Clinton's plan is being framed irresponsible is beyond me, but then I don't read those other blogs because they make my stomach hurt.  I do find it strange that Obama saying, during a debate, that he would launch an attack on a sovereign nation (Pakistan) if he had actionable intelligence slides by under the outrage-radar, yet Clinton gets slammed for actually presenting a workable and viable deterrent against ever having to put any of our soldiers in harm's way.

The demonization of Hillary Clinton has been a spectacle to watch from the far left.  They have been far more Republican than the Republicans ever could have been in their heyday.

Her discussion on this topic is very relevant to actual events going on in the world.  Obama never addresses real issues.  So far, I've not seen much from him other than attacking the Clintons and special interests.

When I was a kid growing up in the 80s, we all used to think deterrence theory (they called it "Mutually Assured Destruction" which obviously wouldn't be an accurate term in Iran's case) was the craziest thing ever.  As we got older and wiser we realized that even though it wasn't a great way to live, there really wasn't any other solution, unless you're one of the Jonah Goldberg types who thinks that after the Nazis surrendered we should have continued on to Moscow.

1. it is not politically expeditious to say something of this nature, he is playing the political game
   
2. he has no policy to deter a nuclear Iran
   
3. he does not have the courage to say what he really thinks
   
4. all of the above

Yesterday, a frightening number of people over at dkos were arguing that the Chinese government is a victim of American corporations and that we have no one to blame but ourselves for their economic policies, horrible record on human rights and their seemingly suicidal environmental policies - all because Clinton spoke out about China and some campaign advisor disagreed with her decision to speak publicly about these very real problems.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Obama had said what Clinton did last night about the nuclear umbrealla or had spoken out against the Chinese government's policies, these exact same sentiments would have been fully supported and defended by his worshipers.  They were all for secretly attacking Pakistan, but they don't believe in nuclear deterrance or in challenging the Chinese government?  Give me a break.

My primary complaint about Obama at this point is that the large majority of his supporters it seems will let him get away with anything and demand NOTHING of him.  That is dangerous.  That is cultish and not much of a departure from the cultists in the Bush Administration.

The Middle East will be a tipping point, but the Umbrella is the only thing we have cause, what are we going to do?  Russia and China will help and or defend Iran.  No one will stop Iran from getting weapons, Russia and China will not let the West take control of the second largest reserve of oil with conventional war and occupation.  

You see it is the neocons and the Bush Administration that has rejected deterrence theory against Iran.

Bush and friends threaten to destroy/attack Iran pretty much every time the subject comes up. They are all about the threat.