Now It's Time to Play 'Iraq or Iran?'
Can you guess whether these conservative columnists are writing about Iraq in 2002 or Iran in 2006? (Answers at the bottom)
"A nuclear Ira[ ], either out of calculation that it could win a nuclear exchange with Israel, or out of a fanatical derangement, clearly poses an existential threat to Israel."
-- Tony Blankley
"Surely the burden of proof is on those who say the United States should stay its disarming hand until the U.N. has reached yet another set of undertakings with an Ira[ ] that is contemptuous of such things."
-- George Will
"Right now -- and until we might have to abandon the Security Council and go it alone -- the war option against Ira[ ] enjoys international legitimacy."
-- Charles Krauthammer
"Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Ira[ ]."
-- Ann Coulter
"Conventional wisdom holds that there are really only two options for dealing with Ira[ ]: military strikes (by us or Israel) or the usual bundle of conferences, ineffective sanctions and windy UN speeches that lead to nothing."
-- Jonah Goldberg
"You know in a sane world, every country would unite against Ira[ ] and blow it off the face of the Earth. That would be the sane thing to do."
-- Bill O'Reilly
"We must be sure that Ira[ ] becomes a 'nuclear-free zone.' "
-- Oliver North
"On balance, war with Ira[ ] may not be inevitable but is highly probable."
-- Bob Novak
ANSWERS: Blankley-Iran, Will-Iraq, Krauthammer-Iraq, Coulter-Iran, Goldberg-Iran, O'Reilly-Iran, North-Iraq, Novak-Iraq