The New York Times says that President Bush is “bullying” Iran, which somehow makes the Iranians more belligerent, but not afraid. If Congress won’t stop him, he’ll get us into war with Iran. But with verbiage, I suppose, since Tehran knows he doesn’t mean it and America won’t back him up. That’s so nuanced a position one can hardly pick out a single action the President could take the NYT Editors would support. (Oh, right…)

They claim that what they’re waiting for is diplomacy with Iran. And if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as crazy and defiant as the President and his few remaining supporters allege, why then we’ll juts appeal to those “clearer heads” in Iran. Someone should explain to the Editors that what passes for clearer heads in Iran are clearer precisely because their skulls no longer bear flesh.

Think through the logic of this wholly dishonest Times Editorial:

Given America’s bitter experience in Iraq, one would think that President Bush could finally figure out that threats and brute force aren’t a substitute for a reasoned strategy. But Mr. Bush is at it again, this time trying to bully Iran into stopping its meddling inside Iraq.

We have no doubt about Iran’s malign intent, just as we have no doubt that Mr. Bush’s serial failures in Iraq have made it far easier for Tehran to sow chaos there and spread its influence in the wider region. But more threats and posturing are unlikely to get Iran to back down. If Mr. Bush isn’t careful, he could end up talking himself into another disastrous war, and if Congress is not clear in opposing him this time, he could drag the country along.

On the one hand, the editors concede “Iran’s malign intent,” and since the don’t dispute the particular actions by which “Iran’s malign intent” is confirmed to the Paper of Record, let’s presume they know what the rest of us know: that Iran is at war with us, and actively sponsoring, supporting, directing, and conducting acts of war against us in Iraq and elsewhere. What in any generation of leadership prior to say, Jimmy Carter anyway, would have spit out their morning coffee over, and declared war. But for the modern ear, passes for subtleties of Inter-global diplomacy.

Which I suppose is the point. If, as the Times Editors, you believe that every ill in the Middle East was caused by or made infinitely worse by one gunslinger President from Texas, why then of course any step he takes to advance (or even defend) US interests give those poor, put upon Mullahs have no choice but threaten the annihilation of Israel or the subjection of Europe under Sharia law.

Same old same old from the Times. God forbid we act at all aggressively in the face of attack or acts of war. Heaven help us, no tough talk or implied threats or even demonstrations of resolve. Nope, just give total control back to the Democrats in Washington and the kleptocrats at the UN, with appropriate obsequiousness to faded European were-powers, and all will be well.

And of course, if it all turns to hell after George is gone, we can still blame him for everything.

Also commenting:

Jules Crittenden, Mr. Bush, Stop Bullying Iran!

Marc Schulman, The New York Times on Iran

Dean Barnett, The Grey Lady Speaks

Billy Hollis, BUSH'S "BULLYING"

Greg Tinti, We're Bullying Iran?!?!?!?  —  The New York Times' editorial board …