Lately Democrats have been lamenting that words lead to deeds, that political name-calling leads to violence and that words have meaning. Hence they call for debate about their policies to be conducted without call to baser emotions, without emotional displays (yelling and chanting at Town Hall meetings), and that they can't take seriously political opponents who chose to bring over a million people together to protest taxes, yet can't prevent signs from appearing that equate President Obama with Hitler.
Of course, this must then also apply to international relations: one must therefore accept that rhetoric implies action, that political name-calling leads to violence, and that words have meaning.
And why, then, do the Democrats not take leaders of Iran at their word when they call for the destruction of Israel? Why do they discount the reports that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems?
Can't have it both ways. Either or. But not both.
Just sayin', you know?