"genuinely puzzled"columnargument
"Liberal hawks" are liberals that acknowledge the existence of very real enemies in the world, and maintain any and all options in dealing with those enemies. You thank God when you can avoid confrontation, but act swiftly and decisively when left with no other diplomatic options.
As opposed to...who? Who are these liberal doves who avoid confrontation when avoiding confrontation is impossible, and then seek to act sluggishly and in as muddled a fashion as possible when finally moved to act? Name names, please. I'd like to steal their lunch money.
Iran raises several complicated questions, but also a simple one: Do you think military force is called for in preventing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons? Some, like me, say no.
As a sidenote on all the Iran hawkery, I'm pretty tired of folks touting lines like "military action really should be the last resort" as some sort of anti-war sentiment. "We'll go to war, but we won't enjoy it" is not the same as "bombing Iran is a foolish idea advocated only by unreconstructed neocons and horsemen impatient for the apocalypse." The issue here is not whether you want to accomplish their disarmament by peaceful means -- theoretically, we all do. It's whether you support war with Iran if you fail.
Jason Zengerle