Your points are well taken. But this way would be consistent with Bush's personality (certainly believable), and his advisors most likely took their cue from Reagan's similar rhetoric and attitude. This is a way to 'cut to the chase' so to speak. Iran can now cooperate and say 'We are not doing anything wrong, and the US is out of line' to both the international community and their people. We take the hit but the job gets done. My point is that maybe this is a Jim Fassel 'our cards are on the table, our chips are in the pot, now we'll see who's who and what's what' type proposition. Now N Korea, Iraq, and Iran, and 'unnamed others' either have to take some actions that can be quantified or they have fair warning about what to expect, and while our allies are crowing now, if these countries DON'T take action, don't be suprised if our allies DON'T disappear. This could end up with us having to take action, or it could have the desired effect without us having to do anything.
Grizzled -- i'm a civil lawyer....i've literally seen inflammatory remarks win cases in both the context of mediation/settlement and litigation....though I must confess, it's not my style. but i don't think this is analagous. In world affairs, perception is reality. In this situation, we sit as the most powerful nation in the world...and at the time, the leader of a huge coalition. The statement has prompted action given all that.
