> I signed because it said "don't attack Iran!" It took about 30
> seconds. It's an essentially meaningless gesture, but I couldn't say
> no. As you know, I don't think much of Comrade Obama.
I appreciate the quandary: any gesture is arguably better than no gesture, right?
But so much is given away -- gladly, joyfully given away -- in how the argument is constructed that I wonder whether this thing doesn't pass the tipping point from futility to downright harm.
It doesn't actually say "don't attack Iran" -- it says "tell Bush that *he's* not allowed to attack Iran." And the "public" has a "democratic... right to decide" to attack Iran? Attacking Iran would be "counterproductive" -- for whom? Suppose it *were* productive for the people who want to do it?
Who actually wrote the thing -- do you know?