I am 100% against Obama’s positions on abortion. But can we PLEASE recognize that claiming that Obama wants to actively kill children (or eat them) is brutally dishonest?

McCain, on the other hand, DOES want to bomb Iran, actively.

You said you wanted it as a headline. The difference is that the discussion of McCain is a valid one; yours is to try to act as if it is as silly as saying….Obama will eat babies. The problem is, one is a valid point of discussion, since McCain has raised it in his rhetoric and others note it.

Secondly, I am not Democrat. You would do well to stop proclaiming things about VN and the people here.

For a second there I thought you had a college education and could figure out what I meant. Obviously I don’t believe that Obama has plans to eat the heads of children. Since my attempt to illustrate the calumnious charges levelled on this blog went over your head, allow me to make an adjustment that you may be able to understand (possibly, I wouldn’t count on it though).

“Will Obama Get the Chance to Kill Even More American and International Fetus’ With His Actual Proposed Policies Than the Amount of Iranians McCain Can Kill Even If He Wanted To Bomb Iran?”

I’m not a Republican or a Democrat, lest that is the next charge out of your mouth. I am Catholic. Remember, you are Catholic before you are Democrat, and there is objective vs. subjective evil. If you can’t understand the difference between the two, then at least make your decision based on the number of innocents each candidate proposes to kill. Obama clearly proposes to kill more human beings at this point in time. Crap, I just caught myself trying to reason with someone on Vox Nova.

There is a difference. No one has yet said Obama eats children. Many people — like Pat Buchanan — have said if McCain is elected, we WILL enter into a way with Iran.

“Will Obama Get the Chance to Eat the Heads Off of Even More Fetus’?”

Not very nice is it… sheesh… dissenter Catholics are all alike.

I’m not a fan of Bush’s foreign policy either, but, you must be smoking some really good crack. Is this blog run by a bunch of teenagers? I feel like I’m watching “Channel One” in my high school home class again. These are luny predictions. Is this a really bad joke? Or are you guys serious. This is one of the craziest blogs I’ve ever seen.

But.

Actually, we have no such certitudes about the alleged cool-headedness of the clerics in Iran. Rather like the hidden world of Kremlin infighting, which despite a cold war of two generations and determined espionage remained opaque to the end, we have very little feel for the inner workings and battles of the Islamic Republic. Especially the relationship between the clerics and factions like the Revolutionary Guard. And we have plenty of evidence that the regime is willing to engage in proxy battles and terrorist brinksmanship when it suits them (Hezbollah).

I would also note that the Europeans reflexively celebrated here are very, very concerned about the nuclear program in Iran. More so than our last NIE.

I think in a couple of years we are going to find out whether deterrence will work.

On the other hand, of course, they DO want to dominate the region from a geo-political standpoint, and it makes good sense that they would, considering which superpowers hem their region in. This aspiration of theirs can also be managed through compromise, so long as the United States makes some show of giving them what they want–which is the assurance of a Shiah-dominated government in Baghdad that is independent of Washington.

If Bush orders a strike on Iran in his declining days as chief executive, an impeachment procedure against him would be useless. Instead, I hope the military refuses to obey, appeals to Congress and Congress orders him to be arrested. True sovereignty in the American systems rests with Congress, although this has never needed to be tested before. Maybe it will now, because Bush and Cheney ARE ideology-crazed fanatics.