On Jul 26, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Michael Smith wrote:
> 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?
I got it from Stephen Shalom. Dunno who wrote it. Sounds like a committee.
Yeah, it's kind of mushy, but I do like the idea of putting one microgram of pressure on Obama to try to block any attack on Iran. "Ok, you're supposed to be the big antiwar guy, now prove it." I realize that it's close to meaningless, but like I said, it took 30 secs. I don't see how it does any harm, though.
Doug