If we'd bombed them, they wouldn't be dying in the streets

Jonah Goldberg, in October 2007, states neither is agreement or disagreement to the notion, simply finding the subject "interesting."

To Bomb Iran, Or No? [Jonah Goldberg]

A letters symposium over at Commentary. There's also the lead article by Josh Muravchik in defense of Neoconservatism. I'm about half-way thru. It's very interesting. More later.

Today, he's exasperated that the Obama administration won't fly in and help the Iranian people in the midst of a disputed election.

Reportedly, you are biding your time, waiting to see what happens, as if it is a great mystery. Your campaign lived and breathed YouTube. Check it now, check it often. You and your team promised "soft power" and "smart power." Well, let's see some of that. Because by not clearly picking a side, it appears you have chosen the wrong side.

Do you fear antagonizing the powers-that-be in Iran? That ship has sailed. Though I am sure they're grateful for your eagerness not to roil the seas around them. Is it because you think "leader of the free world" is just another of those Cold War relics best mothballed in favor of a more cosmopolitan and universal awe at your own story?

"Enough about those people bleeding in the street. What do you think of me?" Is that how it is to be?

As Drum notes, Obama really drives these people nuts.

Meanwhile, Greenwald is all over those who once wanted to kill a lot of Iranians, but now want the U.S. to help them.

Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country -- actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People. During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary's Norman Podhoretz entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran," and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he "hopes and prays" that the U.S. "bombs the Iranians." John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol -- with typical prescience -- hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.

Imagine how many of the people protesting this week would be dead if any of these bombing advocates had their way -- just as those who paraded around (and still parade around) under the banner of Liberating the Iraqi People caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them, at least. Hopefully, one of the principal benefits of the turmoil in Iran is that it humanizes whoever the latest Enemy is. Advocating a so-called "attack on Iran" or "bombing Iran" in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many -- obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives. The same is true every time we start mulling the prospect of attacking and bombing another country as though it's some abstract decision in a video game.

But it's all of a piece, really. Goldberg and his ilk really don't care about the Iranian people. They care about "regime change." If bombing the shit out of a country can produce that result regardless of the carnage, well, eggs break, donchyaknow. If loud bluster in support of the opposition can...do something...resulting in a crack down on the "Imperial stooges," and their supporters rounded up and sent to Iranian prisons as agents of the U.S., then, well, at least we made our voices heard. Their logic and reasoning may be homicidally flawed, but it is consistent.