Americans To Bush: (Theoretically) ATTACK IRAN!!!

Why is it a majority of Americans still understands the Iranian nuclear threat and what needs to be done to stop it better than our so-called "leaders" do? (via Newsmax Insider):

More than six in ten Americans — 63% — say they would approve of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis, a new poll reveals.

Somewhat fewer, 55%, would approve of a strike on Iran by the U.S. and its allies, according to the poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.

A solid 80% of those polled said Iran would likely use nuclear weapons if it acquired them.

Also, 87% of American voters believe a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the U.S.

Americans worry about the direct threat to Israel from Iran “and fear Iran’s potential to share nuclear technology with terrorist groups,” Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research told the Jerusalem Post.

These numbers have remained consistent over the past several years, even as the Bushies' weak, craven, feckless, stubborn insistence on useless "diplomacy" has provided the mullahs all the time and resources they need to break the atomic barrier and build an indigenous nuclear arsenal that they will not be long in "deploying" against the Israelis, Europe, and ourselves.

However, the moral rot of appeasement has taken its toll on the clarity of public thinking:

However, 62% of respondents feel it is still possible to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

That is the approach the Bush Administration currently favors.

“Everyone from this White House, including the vice president’s office, is in agreement that the military action is not the best option at this point, and we should pursue diplomatic and economic pressures,” an American official told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius.

But Ignatius added that if the diplomatic track does not work, “and there are no signs yet that Tehran is willing to bend, all the deadly options will remain on the table.”

And what will be the threshold of confirmation that "the diplomatic track" has failed?  The very nature of "diplomatic tracks" is that they're treadmills that go nowhere and yet whose riders never want to dismount because of the comfortable sheen of sweaty complacency the masturbatory exercise generates.  "If we just keep talking long enough, if we just offer enough concessions, why, the mullahs are BOUND to come around sooner or later.  After all, they're reasonable, rational human beings like we are, right?"

Therein lies the lethal trap.  It was clear years ago that the "diplomatic track" against Iranian nukes was a fool's errand, and that they have simply been stringing us along in order to buy enough time to gain the means of our destruction at their hands.  But, predictably, we and the EUnuchs haven't acknowledged that failure and moved on to more "direct" measures because we don't want to face the alternative, even though pre-emptive conventional action on our terms will be infinitely preferable to suffering nuclear attack on theirs.

It's like a dental check-up.  We all know we need them, but none of us wants to make that appointment, and so we duck it, taking comfort in that nothing bad has happened - yet.  Then comes the inevitable toothache that forces our hand.

That middle section is, most likely, the context for the majority support for military action against Iran cited above.  We continue to negotiate with Tehran not because doing so will be successful in "disarming" the mullahgarchy, but because we don't want to fight them.  And we're all for taking them out - just as soon as we've "exhausted all diplomatic options".  Which will never happen until the first mushroom cloud rises over Tel Aviv and/or Paris and/or New York.  And maybe not even then, if President Hussein is calling the shots.

Hard to believe that lesson isn't indellibly ingrained just seven years after 9/11.  Three thousand dead American civilians weren't sufficient to drive it home; will thirty thousand be enough?  Three hundred thousand?  Three million?

UPDATE: A US attack coming "within weeks"?  Haven't we heard reports like this before?

UPDATE II: Still, I pray to God they're true.