There's a debate of sorts going on around the blogs about the "all options are on the table" language that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all seem to feel they have to mouth. See Digby, for example.

I think Atrios says it the best:

Look, regarding this "all options are on the table" stuff, it's only a phrase to use if you're making a threat. All options are always theoretically on the table. The only reason to state that war is on the table is because you feel it's advantageous to make a threat.

We don't hear leaders saying, "we hope to come to a trade agreement with El Salvador, but until we do all options are on the table," because we're not trying to threaten them with war. This week, at least.

And, we certainly don't need to be making these noises to Iran, a country that has never attacked us.