If we did "hear some tough talk about what kind of response Teheran would feel if it raises a hand against Israel", I would have thought you'd be decrying more reckless, un-nuanced rhetoric from our cowboy unilateralist president.

At any rate, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" beats "Talk tough and get your ass handed to you".

Richard Clark made the point about Bush doing Iran's work for them on Fresh Air on NPR last night.

2000 lives, $300 billion, and Iran is the only winner.

"I would have thought you'd be decrying more reckless, un-nuanced rhetoric from our cowboy unilateralist president."

And you would be mistaken. Admittedly I probably would have remained silent; it'll take triple-axles with one hand tied behind his back for me to stand up and cheer President Loser at this point.

But there are places for tough talk in diplomacy, and in response to calls for genocide is one of them.

What about in response to actual genocide of Kurds or, more recently, Marsh Arabs?

Tough talk? Certainly. Perhaps more.

In the matter of the first, however, Reagan's foreign policy was so woefully short of tough talk that it overlapped into complicity.

In the matter of the second, we could have used diplomatic pressure and military actions to limit the human and environmental devastation but did not.

Reagan had a lot on his plate, what with winning the Cold War and all.

There's something about mentioning Reagan in the context of Iran that bothers me, but I can't recall what it is...

The speech is obviously for domestic consumption. If tough talk about Israel substitutes for more substantive concessions to the mullahs (this guy is not one), it could even be a good thing.

I really don't see any benefits flowing from a US response.

I'd say calls for wiping out another people are categorically worth condemning, political considerations aside. The American government, regardless of the party holding the presidency, has been woefully reluctant to do so, historically.

Back in the '80s, the only stateside folks out making a stink about Saddam's violence were those organizations so often condemned by the right: Amnesty International and the Red Cross. The American government at the time was providing Saddam with military intelligence allowing him to better target his gas weapons against the Iranians.

Reagan had a lot on his plate, what with winning the Cold War and all.

Bah. The Cold War took place over forty-five years and many presidents. Reagan didn't win it. The people of Eastern Europe won it when they rose up and threw out their governments, without any help from the US. It's typical American arrogance to take credit for it. I'll give Reagan credit for backing away from the brink and allowing Gorbachev to institute the reforms that led to that. However, Reagan's conduct in the US-Soviet proxy wars (Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.) was reprehensible and completely supportive of murderous dictatorships.

No points awarded.

Rayguns was a simple, senile old man, kinda like I wil be in twenty years if I live that long. (minus the money and power)I've heard he was reasonbly smart but I don't recall it ever showing unless you give credit for sneaky. A puppet for the most part. "If you've seen 1 tree you've seen them all."