It is interesting to compare and contrast the "peacenik" or "liberal" reaction to Iran's threats with their reaction to Bush's plans to go to war back in 2002.

The antiwar crowd, and those members of the democratic party currently calling for surrender, like to act as if they opposed the Iraq war because they did not believe that Saddam had WMDs or that he was trying to obtain WMDs. In fact, they assumed he had, or would get, them but that's another thread. In hindsight, however, the antiwar left likes to claim that the war was wrong because Saddam was not a threat.

Contrast this with Iran today. You have an Iranian president vowing to defy the UN, vowing to continue his nuclear adventures and threatening his neighbors. You have, in short, a middle Eastern leader doing and/or admitting publicly to wanting to do, everything that the antiwar left claims Saddam was innocent of.

Given that Iran is doing this, you would think, if the antiwar left was truthful, they would be calling for military action. Instead, they are doing the exact same thing they did with Iraq: putting their heads in the sand, hoping the UN makes the problem go away, and telling us how we should be friendlier to the agressor.