E Pluribus Unum

From the LA Times:

Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Wednesday, found that 57% of Americans favor military intervention if Iran’s Islamic government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

“I really don’t think Saddam had anything to do with terrorism, but Iran, I believe, does,” said Edward Wtulich, of Goshen, N.Y... “Iran has been a problem, I think, for years,” Wtulich said, “and we’ve known about it.”

Wtulich, a registered Democrat and retired manager for the New York City Housing Authority, said he supported taking a hard line with Iran despite the strain of the Iraq war on the U.S. military.

“It makes me scared,” he said, “but we may not have a choice."

And while we're at war, the President has absolute power.

If, on the other hand, our civilian and military leaders were to send a message that was different, one that didn't involve scaring the bejeesus out of people, do you think the poll number would be that high?

What if they said, "Yeah, the Iranian regime are bad, bad, people, but we are confident that we can contain their threat one way or the other," do you think the majority of people would favor military intervention?

Of course, some would argue that it would be sugar-coating reality. Others would argue that the threat is real.

But at least we'd have a debate. That is, of couse, assuming we have accurate and balanced assessments of what the risks and rewards would be of military intervention of any kind. Riiiight.

“It makes me scared,” he said, “but we may not have a choice."