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.

Oh so "thoughtfully laid out", if you're courting the favor of Uzi toting settlers, endtimers, and the talk radio educated.

Who, specifically, needs to be reminded that America's a superpower? In most of the rest of the world -- where litteracy, as opposed to demogoguery, is still a priority -- most people are painfully aware of America's capability of riding roughshod over other nations that are rational enough to spend maybe 1/5 of what we do on defense.

And this if-you-critique-her-you-hate-her paranoia that one sees here time and again is the kind of circle the wagons paranoia one would expect from the inhabitants of Texas religious compounds not what you'd like to expect from those attempting to engage in rational discourse.

Rosen roomed with Alan Keyes and Bill Kristol in college, and has since signed off on a report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century put out by the Project for the New American Century,  a Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan enterprise. Rosen was also a Giuliani consultant during his candidacy. Here's the Wikipedia article on Rosen:

Stephen Peter Rosen is Harvard College Professor and Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University. In addition to his academic work, Rosen is also Master of Harvard College's Winthrop House.

A 1974 graduate of Harvard College, he holds a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard. As a graduate student, Rosen roomed with Bill Kristol and Alan Keyes.

Rosen was associate director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies from 1990 to 1996. Before returning to Harvard in 1990, Rosen was a professor in the strategy department at the U. S. Naval War College, a consultant for the President's Commission on Integrated Long-term Strategy, and director of political-military affairs at the National Security Council in the Ronald Reagan White House.[1]

Rosen is a signatory to the Project for the New American Century's controversial 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century (2000), advocating the redeployment of U.S. troops in permanent bases in strategic locations throughout the world where they can be ready to act to protect U.S. interests abroad.[1]

In 2007, Rosen was named as a member of foreign policy advisory team of Republican Party presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. [2] [3]

Jacqueline Newmyer is younger and thus has a shorter history. Notably, she is a consultant with the Bush Defense Department.

Preemption is very likely to lead to war.  Deterrence almost never does.

Further, Clinton's policy would increase the likelihood of creating stronger allies within the region.  McCain's policy would have the opposite effect.

In what alternate universe does this scenario occur?

Israel is not only a nuclear power, but retains conventional capabilities which dwarf Iran's.  Moreover, Israel has attacked its neighbors nearly once a decade since it's formation.  But Israel is still cast in the role of the innocent maiden tied to the train tracks while Iran twists the tip of its mustache?

How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush should issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy's language while changing the names of the miscreants:

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.

This should be followed with a simple explanation: "As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people."

This policy -- the Holocaust Declaration -- would establish a firm benchmark that would outlive this administration. Every future president -- and every serious presidential candidate -- would have to publicly state whether or not he supports the Holocaust Declaration.