I don't see Bush being that hot to attack Iran. He's being jeered now for taking the U.N./multilateral approach. Can't win, I guess.

Bush hasn't directly addressed Iraq, but administration members have done so frequently. We have had much better luck behind the scenes with the Middle East than in public discussions. Many Middle Eastern leaders don't feel they have to put on such a radical face when not in public. Our negotiations with Iraq's insurgency fall into this category.

People forget that Iraq was the culmination of over a decade of deterioration, useless diplomacy and sanctions after the first Gulf War. It's not like we didn't give the alternatives any chance at all.

I don't have any easy answers. An isolationist would just sit back and wait for the exchange between Israel and Iran. I doubt that this would result in fewer civilian casualties than a targeted bombing of facilities now.

I don't know if Iran has an organized opposition that can be encouraged, but it should be done if possible.

A lot of people out there who think outlawing handguns is the greatest idea since sliced bread seem to be remarkably blase' about Iran acquiring atom bombs. Go figure.