I read that ridiculous article and to my surprise it was sad to see another irresponsible article by a possibly senile/delusional writer pushing us to a 3rd war in the middle east under false premises. These people should be held liable for starting unjustifiable wars, such as the Iraq war. The number of dead and wounded American boys and girls since the Vietnam war from the current wars is unprecedented, but people such as Mr. Broder don't seem to learn from History.

David Broder and others like him should be held responsible for their attempt to start another war under false premises. These people have blood on their hands. These wars have resulted in killing innocent people on both sides. People and writers such as Mr. Broder that have helped to shape the general American public opinion to make such huge sacrifices in Iraq with their misguided writing or most likely on the advice of special interest groups should be considered traitor(s) to this country.

David Broder is a writer from another time. I don't mean this in a nasty way, not really; in his day, Broder was a solid reporter and an often shrewd observer of American politics, Congress, and the White House.

Some fundamental things have changed in recent years though, not only in terms of America's relationship with the rest of the world but also, maybe especially, in terms of the Great Recession and the impact that has had on how Americans think about their government and public affairs generally. Broder has not caught up. He is elderly by this time, less able to work out his own views on subjects about which he has no great foundation of knowledge and more apt to pass along ideas from people he knows personally.

He is still prominent enough for his columns to attract notice (and will be as long as the Washington Post retains its policy of keeping familiar columnists around forever), but as Lynch suggests Broder's views are no influential in the Obama White House, and on this subject are unlikely to be influential anywhere else.

You've gotten around the topic many times, but it's still astonishing how the Obama administration excluded any possibility of strategic maneuver for the short-term political gain of seeming like a man who "stands up against Iran" and starting the negotiation with a threat of war.

Imagine the situation.A highwayman jumps at you with a knife, yelling that if you don't give him all your money, you'll be dead in a minute. Seconds later, he holsters the knife and politely asks "how about a loan instead?". Would you ever take him seriously?

Why do people think this column is dumb? This is just another in a steady drumbeat of articles emanating from the neocon cabal promoting all-out war against Iran. It's been going on since 2004. Why do you think we are in Iraq. The Oil, right? But also to establish permanent bases to attack Iran. Why are we building permanent bases in Afghanistan? To support an attack on Iran. What does Obama need to get reelected in 2012? A nice war, probably starting about March, 2012.