Talk

As a rule I try not to overtly link to folks that haven't completed hair growth in "that special place" but still it is the message that counts. But Yglesias, filling in for Josh Marshall who is on break (bloggers get to take breaks?) has an excellent summation of where we stand on what seems to be a predestined war -- unless Democrats step up and do something about it.

Nevertheless, there's no mistaking the fact that just as Iran has been trying to at least set the stage for possibly ratcheting tensions with the United States down, there's been a fairly concerted effort in the American press to ratchet things up. The folks doing the ratcheting have, it's clear, some friends and some influence inside the administration.

People need to understand this and be clear with themselves. This is not a group of people primarily concerned with Iran's nuclear program -- anyone who thought that would be open to some negotiating. This is a group of people primarily concerned -- for whatever reason, no doubt the reasons are mixed and vary somewhat -- with continuing and intensifying US-Iranian conflict. It's not clear how influential this faction is or will be in the president's decision-making, but those of us on the outside are either with them or against them.

As recent posts from Ivo Daalder and Michael Levi indicate, there's no reason to think Democrats have anything to fear from standing up for engagement rather than war. The real political risk is that staying silent lets the other side shape people's understand of what's happening so deeply that it becomes harder to speak up later. The odds that this whole situation somehow won't come up in the midterms are low. Democrats are going to have to deal with it, and it's better to start sooner than later.

As long as people like Joe Lieberman and Marshall "Bullshit Moose" Wittmann are enabling, things will end up fucked all to hell.

There is ABSOLUTELY no reason for the Democrats to get out front and encourage unilateral talks between the two countries.