got a question -- what were some of the
sabre rattling type things reagan said about Gorbachev

bsimon, in re: long-winded intellectual types... we have NOT had one of those in office for almost eight years now. How's that workin' out for ya?

Concerned: I am only guessing that the "Nut" in fact is very smart and calculating and has no intentions of starting anything with Israel, for he must know we will be there in force. None of us are mind readers, and the best we can do is guess about him.

The truth of the matter is that the Iranian nuclear matter may be taken totally out of hands.
The Israelis, after the Holocaust, have clearly stated that a nuclear armed Iran is not an option. In view of Ahmadenijad's public statements that Israel will be erased from the face of the world, Israel will not sit still and hope for the best. When it begins, the U.S. will be instantly pulled into the chaos. Heaven help us.

MikeB: Just when I'm thinking you had finally blew your wig, you start making sense again. Stay on your meds, y'all.

Look, gang, Iran can build nuclear weapons and *legally*, under international law, there isn't one thing we can do about it. I don't happen to think their nuclear program is primarily for weapons, but even if it was, so what? Iran is an independent country. The leaders of Iran were *popularly* elected, in elections that were a lot cleaner and more democratic than the travesty we experienced with Florida in 2000. As an denepdnent country, Iran has the right to arm themselves. They can blather all day long about Israel needing to disappear, about the U.S. being the great Satan, etc. but so long as the do not attack another country, there isn't one thing we can and ought to do. And, as for the charge that there are Iranian weapons in Iraq, that is diengenuous at best. There are Russian and Chinese and Indian and North Korean and French weapons, too. The Chinese are *actively* selling arms on the international market and the various Islamic groups are some of their best customers. Now, there isn't one shred of evidence that the Iranian government is behind any of the sales of those weapons, but there is plenty of evidence that the CHinese govenrment is behind their sales. Ditto for the Indians. Are we, then, going to bomb India and China? Quit being silly. Of course not. Bush is desparate for some sort of excuse for his disasterous war in Iraq and Afghanistan and desparate for some sort of support. I really believe that the fanatics in his administration are calculating whether a war with Iran might win him the support of the American people and quiet down his COngressional critics. It's garbage right out of the neocon play book.

Truth Hunter, proud and Concerned: Iran has a nut as their leader, no question. The population is about 71 million and they do have quite a number of Jews and Christians that practice their faith openly, from some sources I have heard, not sure how true they are though. The "Nut" there could be not as nutty as most of us think, and is seeking attention, and getting it, I should add. Think of how bad the world intel was so wrong, and suppose they already have nukes. Something to think about.

'Where I currently live, the landscape is peppered with the empty silos that once housed nuclear missiles, where soldiers stood guard 24/7 waiting to launch on a hair-trigger. I am glad that we have moved back from that precipice.'

cheney wants to bring it back, by destabilizing the ME -- for oil.

lylepink:
Your viewpoint regarding Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons is sheer ignorance...and high on the lunacy scale.
In addition to the self-professed willingness by Ahmadinejad to bring on Armageddon, you overlook a second more deadly and realistic scenario. The Iranians, or the militant sector, could easily put one of more nuclear devices into the hands of Al Queda who would use them in a heartbeat against our cities.
And Iran could plead ignorance and innocence.
You need to come up to speed on this matter.

Just when I was thinking that just maybe MikeB had gotten back on his medicine.....

Just when I was thinking that just maybe MikeB had gotten back on his medicine.....

MilkeB.... I totally agree, globalization only means we lose our world economic leadership, dismantle our manufacturing base and lower our standards of living.

We need to make it clear to our legislators, no New World Order, no globalization and no North American Union!

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

I agree that no amout of troop would pacify the Baghdad given the current mission and rules of engagement.

I don't see the failure to pacify Baghdad as the problem. (It was a short term problem 6 months after the war started, but the real problem now is a much worse problem: the rejection of social values that succeed.

If no one would blow anything up for 6 weeks, I think all Iraqis would be shocked at how much better life would become. They could just look at Kurdistan, where great progress is being made, but they won't. They will act the way that Fatah and Hamas act: Profess great hatred for an outside "enemy", but expend most of their ammo on each other. I know not all of the people of Iraq are violent fanatics, but way to many of the ones who are not defer to the ones who are.

The only hope for success now would be a cease fire. This won't happen, because rationality would have to triumph. Islamic civic culture and rationality sometimes seem mutually exclusive.

lylepink - Your candidate doesn't even support this ridiculous view you espouse.

The Cold War "line" was based on Mutual Assured Destruction, between superpowers.
The strategy is effectively a form of Nash Equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome -- nuclear annihilation.

Cold War doctrine assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side will launch on warning.

Tehran has stated that it is not concerned with worst case scenarios. Deterrence is not in their doctrine.

ICBMs and submarine launched missles render your theory of Middle East stabilization useless.

Where I currently live, the landscape is peppered with the empty silos that once housed nuclear missiles, where soldiers stood guard 24/7 waiting to launch on a hair-trigger. I am glad that we have moved back from that precipice.

The international community is in agreement that Iran should suspend it's nuclear program. Anything we can do to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons is well worth the effort.

bsimon - China and India no more participates in the "global economy" than does a bank robber particpate in savings. It's all one way. China and India send us cheap goods, take our jobs, take our technology, and refuse to take most of what we make in return. If that's what you mean by globalization, and evidently it does becasue you full well know this, then you are being more than a little dishonest. I wish you and the other globalizers, the Free Traitors, would honestly admit what you whacked out economic ideas are doing to this country. Globalization and those that advocate it are nothing short of criminals and, god and common sense willing, someday we'll see you on trial for it.

lylepink.... Well, that might be fine and dandy except that Iran is a theocracy....

There is a world of difference between Islamic Iran and the Cold War standoff with Russia. This scary difference is that Islamic Iran has an apocalyptic worldview under its current leadership.

The Cold War dynamics of assured-mutual-destruction are negated. That's why we need world cooperation to keep Iran in check. And, why saber rattling doesn't work... it promises to fulfill prophecy.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"Actually, your responses mirrored Biden's during the recent non-debate. I agree with lowering the decibel level."

Really. The more I hear about Biden, the more interesting he gets. I think it'll be a while though, before the Dems nominate another long-serving Senator. After the Gore & Kerry experiences, the market is not hot for long-winded intellectual types.

Yes - exactly, Razorback. If we leave the Iranian people alone, they may well get rid of Ahmenijad. They do have a political process there, which is fairer than a lot of countries. They talk about Jews a lot, but Tehran has a thriving population of Jews who practice their relgion freely.

There is a book that came out a few years ago, called Persepolis, written by a young Iranian woman, about the democracy movement among the young people. Let's stay out of their business and give them a chance before we blow them back to the stone age.

bsimon, are you American born, above the age of 35, and eligible to vote in Federal elections? We may have to draft you.

Actually, your responses mirrored Biden's during the recent non-debate. I agree with lowering the decibel level.

It seems our level of intel in the ME sux, doesn't it?

Razorback, would you be amenable to my rephrasing and saying:

allowing for the alien state of Arab political culture, the US Army is not big enough to pacify the City of Baghdad?

My original assertion, without the culture reference, was lifted from a recent interview of Colin Powell.

The idea of Iran with nukes is fine and dandy with me. This would greatly increase the balance of power in the ME. At the present time Israel is by far the only power in the ME. This has taken a lot of thought on my part, and I know this is not a popular position. I make the arguement that the more balanced power is, the less chance anyone will use what they have. This was/is along the Cold War line that keep us all a little safer.

Bsimon writes:

"This is remarkably similar to a plan formerly attributed to the Vice President's office."

This is also remarkably similar to a plan excuted by the Israelis that might have prevented Saddam from having nukes.

Having said that, I agree with JD that we shouldnt strike now. We should wait and pursue other less risky means. I also believe we shouldn't sabre rattle right now, because there is a political process in Iran that might work to our benefit given time. I do agree with Hillary, Obama Edwards and Bush that all options should be on the table.

bsimon, fair point. It would be helpful to know who is really running that regime. Everything I've heard and read is that Mahmoud is in charge, kind of like the chairman of a committee, and has the juice to make decisions wrt war.

I also heard that he was behind the kidnapping (on trumped up charges) of the UK sailors, partially to get a reaction and stir the pot, and partially to raise the price of oil (resulting in an immediate $15b plus-up in Iranian rev).

My boss, Tim Ryan, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, is very proud of these bills. The first bill, the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, provides an 8 percent increase in funds for border protection and even more money to hire 3,000 new border patrol agents. The second bill sets aside $43.2 billion which will help provide medical services (including mental health and substance abuse assistance) to veterans.

Republicans have been playing games on the floor. Since around 8PM last night, they have been using arcane rules to stop us from passing these bills. We don't understand why. The Republicans CREATED the Department of Homeland Security, the Democratic majority is trying to fund it and now they won't allow us to pass the bill? They are CONSTANTLY talking about border security, we are trying to fund it and they won't allow us to pass the bill? They claim to support our troops and then they hold up a bill which would grant them world class healthcare?

oh yes, the country of paris hilton, britney spears and morbid fascination with celebrities, oj simpson and missing white women, oh yes, our culture is superior to any in the world. you betcha.

JD writes
"I believe that the leaders of Iran are crazy. They disavow the holocaust, and would nuke Israel (or us) if they had the chance - and they've stated as much. A return nuking and decimation of their country doesn't seem to scare them."

You're half right. Ahmadinejad is crazy. Some of the mullahs that really run the show share his views. This is not true, however, of all the religious leaders in Iran, nor of the population as a whole. It is a mistake to characterize Ahmadinejad's views as representative of Iran as a whole.

Razorback writes
"Reagan's rejected the notions that the state of the world was somehow America's fault, and if we would just be reasonable, our adversaries would be pacified."

The state of the world is neither the fault of the US, nor unimpacted by US foreign policy. In regards to US-Iranian relations, we found an opening to work with them in taking out the Taliban, then decided to throw them into an 'Axis of Evil'. Relations have been decidedly tense ever since. This week we've seen neocon loon Lieberman suggest either we or Israel preemptively strike Iran to stop their nuke program. This is remarkably similar to a plan formerly attributed to the Vice President's office. Whoever's responsible for it, it is diametrically opposed to the course currently promoted by President Bush and SoS Rice. I suggest that the latter are on the smarter path than the former.

Chris, the Media-driven campaign devoted to Hillary and Obama is getting expected results: Hillary and Obama are topping the national polls. (Surprise, surprise!) No wonder, since the other Democratic candidates are rarely mentioned in any serious way.

The fact that the media in this country is mostly owned by a few conservative corporations appears to be the reason. They are pushing Hillary and Obama because they know that they would be the easiest to defeat, and thus we would have another Republican in the White House. Democrats would do well to google "presidential campaign 2008 polls" and check out the latest Rassmussen poll (6/7/07), the only poll that puts each Republican candidate up against each Democratic candidate as to who people will vote for in the General Election.

And the results are a shocker!! Only one Democrat can defeat every Republican candidate, and by good margins. And that candidate is none other than JOHN EDWARDS. Hillary does miserably, Obama does better. But it is clearly Edwards who is the only Democrat who would win the election if running against Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, Romney, or any of the others. Get with it, Chris! Be different than the many hacks who don't get past the surface. Lead the way and tell Americans what they need to know! If Democrats do not become aware of this soon, we will, again, all go off the cliff together, and find ourselves with yet another Republican in the White House! How does it feel to be so manipulated by the media, Democrats?

Razorback: I have the perfect conservative bumper sticker: "Love Democracy Or We'll Kill You."

Guaranteed to win hearts and minds.

You said: "Reagan's rejected the notions that the state of the world was somehow America's fault, and if we would just be reasonable, our adversaries would be pacified. Reagan viewed our civic culture as superior to theirs, it gave him faith that we would prevail, so he challenged them to an arms race he know we would win, and the cold war ended."

And, just how has that turned out? Is the world safer, and terrorism contained? Get real. We're standing by while Russia aligns with China and Iran. That should end well.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters."

You know, just like Giuliani prepared New York City for 9/11 by ensuring that police, fire, and other rescue workers used communications systems that could not communicate with each other, and by insisting on locating the city's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) crisis center in the heart of New York's most likely terrorist target, one already hit before.

(The thousands of gallons of diesel fuel stored in WTC 7 to power OEM's backup generators was a particularly bright idea... except for the part where the fuel spilled, burned, and led to the building's collapse.) With preparation like that, who needs terrorists?

Rudy the authoritarian knows that there's a certain Republican primary voter base that just eats this chest-thumping, authoritarian business up. But anyone who knows Giuliani knows that he means it, and should be terrified at the prospect of yet another fear-mongering tyrant in the White House. He's trying to become the new Bush, rejecting even the idea that we live in a representative democracy and that there's this thing called Congress he might need to consider. Hell, it worked for Bush for six years, I guess Rudy figures why not another four, or eight.

Greg notes another aspect of Rudy brought up by the other thing missing from his list of Commitments: Iraq. Rudy says essentially that Iraq isn't his problem:

"What I was trying to do was to look at the things, as best as you can predict it now, that are going to be there a year and a half from now," he said. "Iraq may get better; Iraq may get worse. We may be successful in Iraq; we may not be. I don't know the answer to that. That's in the hands of other people. But what we do know for sure is the terrorists are going to be at war with us a year, a year and a half from now."

Leadership.

'We may be successful in Iraq; we may not be' -- Eh, who knows?

Wrong answer Rudy baby, wrong answer. Tomorrow you will have to eat that, because the base will go insane if you even mention the word 'lose' -- because they're losers. They're very touchy.

While I usually only comment on economic/taxes issues, I'm going to chime in on Iran.

I believe that the leaders of Iran are crazy. They disavow the holocaust, and would nuke Israel (or us) if they had the chance - and they've stated as much. A return nuking and decimation of their country doesn't seem to scare them.

That said, a preemtive strike now doesn't make sense; it would only reinforce Mahmoud's claim that it's the US vs muslims, and they would rally most of the middle east to their side. Rather, we need to continue the pressure, try (and probably fail) to get Russia and China to help with some kind of embargo, even blockade their ports if necessary.

But not strike them unless we have good intel that a nuke is imminent. Actually, I'd guess that our gov is hoping the Israelis will do it for us, like they did with Saddam in the '80s. Hell, they owe us anyway.

bsimon 4:01: Thank you for revisiting some of the history of our relationship with the Middle East.... not the neocon rewritten version.

The ham-fisted, saber-rattling approach of the Bush administration to foreign "policy" with schoolmarm Condi delivering lectures, has closed international doors and minds and plunged us once again into Cold War tensions.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Bsimon, don't you think the Iranians were a bit nervous after 9/11 and willing to work with us in any way they could? I think that had more to do with fear than emerging Iranian moderates.

In the Iran/Iraq war, we (like the Israelis) played both sides to let the fanatics bleed themselves out. Bullets and soldiers lost by both sides were a win/win for the US. Cynical I know, but what can you do when dealing with violent fanatics?

Bsimon also says:

"Our prior support for the autocratic regime of the shah was a big part of the problem; but when the revolution occurred, we treated the whole revolution as though it were anti-US. There was a large pro-democracy contingent among the revolutionaries, but we did not support them & instead saw the ayatollah & fundamentalists come to power, which they've effectively maintained since."

You could replace the word "shah" with "Batista" and "ayatollah & fundamentalists" with "Fidel & Communists" and have a argument that was previously made which history indicates is a false one. Again and again during the cold war, it was suggested that US policy drove idealists to the Soviets.

Reagan's rejected the notions that the state of the world was somehow America's fault, and if we would just be reasonable, our adversaries would be pacified. Reagan viewed our civic culture as superior to theirs, it gave him faith that we would prevail, so he challenged them to an arms race he know we would win, and the cold war ended.

Our failure in Iraq is because we overestimated the potential of Islamic civic culture. In Japan, Germany, Chile, S. Korea, Malaysia, Spain post Franco, Poland, India and other places have taken the best of our culture (individual and economic freedom) and combined it with the best of their own culture and enjoyed spectacular success. Iraq doesn't seem to be doing that, which I regard as a negative reflection on them, not us.

BEDFORD, New Hampshire (AP) -- Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani on Tuesday offered a dozen proposals for reform on issues from energy to education, echoing standard political promises and providing few specifics.

The former New York City mayor vowed to cut taxes, impose accountability on Washington and lead the country to energy independence -- basic tenets cited by Republican and Democratic candidates.

"A lot of what the Democrats are doing is like looking in the rearview mirror. They want to take the country back to where it was in the 1990s," he said.'

Yeah, all that damn peace and prosperity -- wouldn't want that to happen. Much better where we are now -- big national debt, contractors bleeding the country dry, foreign corporations writing laws, Rudy cashing in big time on 9/11. Oh yes, much better now.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Hours after a revered Shiite mosque was bombed Wednesday, Sunni houses of worship came under attack, Iraq's Interior Ministry said.

The bombing destroyed two towers at Al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra. The same holy site was attacked in February 2006, causing the top of the mosque's dome to collapse. That attack sparked Iraq's current wave of deadly Shiite-Sunni violence.

There was no immediate word on casualties in the city north of Baghdad.

Authorities said they believe Sunni insurgents hit the mosque. At the Pentagon, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey said that "it clearly seems to me to be a signature attack of al Qaeda."

After the blast in Samarra, gunmen stormed a Sunni mosque in southwestern Baghdad's Bayaa area, a Shiite neighborhood, an Interior Ministry official said. Gunmen forced two guards to leave the Khudhair al-Janabi mosque before they burned it, the official said.

To the south in Babil province, militia stormed the Iskandariya Grand Mosque, a Sunni mosque, and blew it up with explosives, police in Hilla said.

Another Sunni mosque in Iskandariya -- Abdullah al-Jabouri -- was attacked by militiamen, who used explosives to destroy its minarets.

I'd like to see the proof that Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban. Why? They're Sunni and Iran is Shia. It makes no sense. The last time they announced they had 'proof' that Iran was manufacturing bombs to use in Iraq, they showed the 'proof'. The weapons that English lettering and numeration instead of Persian-- turned out they were British.

razor says " the issue turned on statutory language, not some leftist notion of judicial entitlement:, but it is the liberals that are so concerned about the lack of "due process" for downtrodden aliens.

Meanwhile, immigration lawyers representing criminal aliens have gummed up the court system with eleven years of litigation over the 1996 laws banning deportation relief for felons.

'The real risk of going bankrupt is if, in the words of de Tocqueville, voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.'

You mean the way the corporations have?

'My point is not that the use of force should be taken off the table, but that too much emphasis is put on the use of force.'

Thank you for the sanity, bsimon. Any country that bullies, swaggers, and constantly threatens to bomb anyone who doesn't agree with them is bound to become reviled by the entire world. Everyone knows what we are capable of, but if Iran thinks we are going to bomb them no matter what, what incentive do they have to do what we ask?

'As Kissinger said, "So long as Iran views itself as a crusade rather than a nation, a common interest will not emerge from negotiations."

--So long as the US views itself as a crusade rather than a nation, a common interest will not emerge etc.

and you gopies think you're on a crusade -- bushie said so. going to rid the world of 'evil' -- good luck on that one. simple minds.

proudtobeGOP writes
"There is no basis for accepting the Iranian claim that it is not seeking nuclear weapons or the assertion that a nuclear Iran is not dangerous.

How can you possibly hope to establish a trusting relationship with a country who supports rogue terrorist organizations and despises weakness?"

I agree. A nuclear Iran would be dangerous. That is why I would, in conjunction with the IAEA, work with Iran to help them safely develop a non-military nuclear energy program. In terms of the Iranian built explosive devices showing up in Iraq & Afghanistan, Iran needs to explain how these devices have made it into the hands of terrorists. The US is happy to work with Iran in determining what rogue elements within their government and/or the Revolutionary Guard might be smuggling these devices out of their country.

Initially, I was concerned about what proud2beGOP stated in terms of a lawsuit filed by aliens. The aliens were legal, the statute has since been repealed, and the issue turned on statutory language, not some leftist notion of judicial entitlement. The first paragraph of the opinion:

"At issue is a judicial amendment to an unconstitutional statute now repealed. In most cases, repeal would obviate judicial review. But this statute, and its judicial alteration, continue to affect the lives of lawful permanent residents whose criminal convictions imperil their stay in the United States. Former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), the statutory provision at issue, provided the Attorney General with discretion to waive the exclusion of certain lawful permanent residents who sought reentry to the United States after a temporary departure ("excludees"). See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). The plain language of § 212(c) expressly precluded from its scope lawful permanent residents who never left the country ("deportees"). Nonetheless, in Francis v. INS, 532 F.2d 268 (2d Cir.1976), we held the denial of a § 212(c) waiver to deportees violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The constitutional problem was remedied with a revision of § 212(c), extending the availability of a § 212(c) waiver to deportees who were similarly situated to excludees. Id. at 273. In doing so, we gave teeth to the admonition of Judge Learned Hand: "It is well that we should be free to rid ourselves of those who abuse our hospitality; but it is more important that the continued enjoyment of that hospitality once granted, shall not be subject to meaningless and irrational hazards." Di Pasquale v. Karnuth, 158 F.2d 878, 879 (2d Cir.1947)."

Razorback writes
"I don't think the problem is US policy. I think the problem is the low quality of Islamic civic culture."

No, labelling regimes as members of the 'Axis of Evil' is part of the problem. Before they were labelled as such, we worked with Iran to take out the Taliban in Afghanistan - the real war on terror, if you'll recollect. Likewise, supporting Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war strengthened the Khomeni regime in Iran, once again, by building a sense of nationalism among the Iranian people. Our prior support for the autocratic regime of the shah was a big part of the problem; but when the revolution occurred, we treated the whole revolution as though it were anti-US. There was a large pro-democracy contingent among the revolutionaries, but we did not support them & instead saw the ayatollah & fundamentalists come to power, which they've effectively maintained since.

More evidence that legislators should insist that current immigration laws be strictly enforced:

Immigration lawyers and ethnic activists run a massive, lucrative industry whose sole objective is to help illegal aliens and convicted criminal visa holders evade deportation for as long as possible. Entry into this country should be a privilege, not a right. The open-borders lobby and Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, have turned that principle on its head.

Look no further than New York, where four convicted criminal aliens -- a child molester, two killers, and a racketeer -- just won a federal lawsuit to remain in the country after all being ordered deported. The stunning decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Blake v. Carbone, came down on June 1.

The ruling, which hinges on convoluted due-process arguments, will greatly expand the number of criminal aliens convicted of certain aggravated felonies who can now receive relief from deportation.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWU5MGZhZDEzNDg1ODFhMjI1M2JjMjQ3ZDQwMDVkOWE=

MikeB, do the math and check the US employment rate.

MikeB, the same alarms that are being sounded now with regard to China and India were being sounded in the late 80s with respect to Japan.

The Japanese are taking over, why they even bought Pebble Beach golf course and Rockefeller Center. The Japanese did just that, and then the US bought them back from them for half of what they paid.

Chinese communists can no more kick our asses at capitalism that the Sisters of Mt. Saint Mary's can beat the Duke men's basketball team.

The US will not go bankrupt because of what the Chicoms do. The real risk of going bankrupt is if, in the words of de Tocqueville, voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.

Follow-up question for candidate bsimon:

Two days ago, Afghan security forces found a sophisticated roadside bomb of the type used in Iraq in the center of Kabul last month, the first time such a device has been discovered in the capital, an Afghan intelligence official said Monday. The bomb was primed to hit a convoy of high-ranking Afghan officials or international forces, the official said.

Nicholas Burns, a senior U.S. diplomat, says Iran is transferring weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

There is no basis for accepting the Iranian claim that it is not seeking nuclear weapons or the assertion that a nuclear Iran is not dangerous.

How can you possibly hope to establish a trusting relationship with a country who supports rogue terrorist organizations and despises weakness?

As Kissinger said, "So long as Iran views itself as a crusade rather than a nation, a common interest will not emerge from negotiations."

Razorback writes
"the globilization trend which began with the Phoenicians in last millennium BC will continue forever."

Taking the Chinese into consideration, I believe you can backdate the globalization trend another 5 - 10 centuries. Shoot, in what years were the Egyptians importing guest workers to build their big ole stone tombs?

Bsimon is quite the optimist. He is still waiting for the mythical "Iranian moderates" that Carter failed to find and that Reagan was looking for when he traded arms for hostages.

What if they don't exist? What if the real problem is that too many Muslims are either violent fanatics or willing to defer to violent fanatics?

Likewise, Mark in Austin suggests that the problem with US policy in Iraq is that we didn't send enough troops to pacify Baghdad.

What if the real problem is no amount of troops pacify violent Muslim fanatics and those who defer to them?

I don't think the problem is US policy. I think the problem is the low quality of Islamic civic culture.

MikeB claims
"The places globalization has been ended or curtailed are experiencing high rates of growth and economic expansion. "

Like where? China? India? Whoops! They're growing BECAUSE OF globaliztion. Hmm... Who's curtailed globalization, North Korea? Anyone else?

Razorback - Do the math. Either globalization ends or is cutailed here in the U.S. or we cease to exist...bankrupt. The places globalization has been ended or curtailed are experiencing high rates of growth and economic expansion. Our one sided trade and economic policies means we depend upon foreign investments to prop up our debts and that means offshoring jobs and technology, importing government subsidized foreign goods and services with which we cannot hope to compete, and dancing to the tunes of foreign governments. Not a very secure way to run a country and one with disasterous consequences in the near future.

put another way, if bsimon is running for President and is asked "Would you consider a military strike on Iran to keep them from acquiring a nuclear weapon?"

The response would be something along the lines of:

What an idiotic question. Of course 'the military option' will always be on the table. The more important point is that threatening a military strike is the wrong way to incent Iran to give up their nuclear program. In pursuing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, the US is willing to work with Iran and the IAEA to ensure that they're able to most effectively exploit the technology efficiently, safely and non-militarily. Our expertise - and that of other allies - can save Iran a lot of time and money in designing a non-military nuclear power program that most effectively meets their needs. By working together and establishing a trusting working relationship, we can promote regional and global security from nuclear threats by rogue operators.

The dems have squandered any political capital they had after the '06 election quicker than even GWB could do.

Hopefully the voters are paying attention to those lawmakers who can do their job at all. A minimum of competence in one's job is not too much to expect, is it? Lawmakers- make some law! Legislate! Do something for the good of the country, not the good of your political campaign for once.

MikeB, I have some bad news for you.

Because capital flows to the point of highest return, and because consumers seek what to them represents the best combination of quality and price, the globilization trend which began with the Phoenicians in last millennium BC will continue forever.

Razorback asks
"Once Iran knows the US will not use force, all they have to do is talk talk talk while they work to build a bomb, and once they have it, what do you do then?"

and Mark in Austin asks
" I agree with your outlook, but do not see how any candidate can say anything less than "force is a last resort, and it would be, in fact, the last resort."

What's your plan to avoid that answer?"

My point is not that the use of force should be taken off the table, but that too much emphasis is put on the use of force. Continuing the pre-emptive war doctrine in the form of an attack on Iran will serve to unite more of the world against us. Perhaps it could stop the threat of a nuclear Iran, but how does the rest of the world look at us? As a bunch of trigger-happy gunslingers. In short, striking first - particularly in the absence of any realistic threat - is bad policy. Also, in Iran, Ahmadinejad doesn't have universal support. By responding to his rhetoric with threats of attack, he's building support on the basis of nationalism - the Iranian people will side with him, even if they don't like him, in the face of external military threats from the US. A better strategy is to appeal to the more rational political and non-political leadership in Iran to co-opt Ahmadinejad.

proudtobeGOP - ...and, do not forget the political calculaous on immigration. Right now, the public sees this legislation as AMNESTY and is overwhelmingly opposed to it. The Democratic leadership may have the moral backbone of jellyfish, but they have figured out that immigration is the new third rail of American politics. *MOST* registered voters demand that the borders be secured and the influx of illegals be completely stopped before even discussing the other issues. ANd, they overwhelmingly DO NOT want the family provision proposed by Kennedy, et al nor anything that even remotely looks like t will displace American workers. The necon's fuzzy one world ideology is in the process of being consigned to the garbage heap of history and any politcian clinging to it will soon follow.

In meetings yesterday, a new idea for passing the immigration bill was mentioned to the president by Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA). He said the public's "confidence level" in Congress and the White House to secure the border is so low that it's jeopardizing passage for the bill.

Isakson said what's needed is an "emergency supplement" to finance the buildup of border security now, rather than waiting until the bill is approved by Congress and signed by Bush. That would show, he said, that Washington really intends to secure the border.

Now, that seems like a great idea with some real potential, as it addresses the main concern for most Americans.

And what have dems done to get legislation moving?? Reid and the Senate Democrats sent the president a letter on Monday, saying he must get more Republicans to vote for a limit on debate.

But this letter was disingenuous for two reasons. First, Reid must know that Bush's influence on Senate Republicans is at a low point.

Second, Reid has set up a straw man. He is refusing to return the bill to the floor, saying too few Republicans would support cloture, and then blaming the president for it.

Once again, dems have shown their utter inability to lead or come up with new ideas on any issues that really matter to voters. No wonder Congress' approval rating has slipped to 27%.

A Pew Research Center poll asked adults nationwide:
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Democratic leaders in Congress are doing?"

49% disapprove.

Razorback...so? I am not wedded to the notion of unions. These days unions are pretty much a transparent joke that stand for increased benefits and wages for public employees, organizing illegal aliens, endorsing politcial hacks, and not much else. They certainly don't represent the bulk of rank and file working men and women.

And, as much as I hate to agree with you, you are right about Ronald Reagan. Presidnet Reagan and Pope John-Paul were pretty much solely responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. Some political partisan's seek to defame Reagan's acheivement by rewriting history, which is both stupid and irresponsible. Now, I never voted for Reagan, but I am coming to understand that I was simply wrong about him. He is one of our great Presidents and was a decent and moral man who acheived greatness. He belongs on Mount Rushmore.

I have to be back at my desk in 14 min so I'll read your reply later.

bsimon, if "speak softly and carry a big stick" means anything today, it does not mean "threaten a lot and have an Army too small to pacify Baghdad." So I agree with your outlook, but do not see how any candidate can say anything less than "force is a last resort, and it would be, in fact, the last resort."

What's your plan to avoid that answer?

Bsimon, Carter's human rights record had nothing to do with the fact that the Soviet economy was underperforming the US economy or that the Soviets had overextended themselves in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and other places.

Reagans arms race and policy of opposing them in places they were overextended put pressure on the Soviets.

Bsimon what do you suggest is a "bold leadership for a new, smarter foreign policy?"

Once Iran knows the US will not use force, all they have to do is talk talk talk while they work to build a bomb, and once they have it, what do you do then?

MikeB, I am sure you realize that your Toyota was made right here in the USA by a NON-UNION shop?

I respect your decision to buy those goods and services that you think are the best combination of quality and price. Why can't you respect my similar decision?

I don't support slave labor. The WaPo editorial makes the very point that South Korea has trade unions and a modern economy.

The issue on the South Korean trade agreement has nothing to do with slave labor and everything to do with the issue of what do you put first, the interests of a politicized special interest group (big auto corporatiosn and big labor) or American consumers.

That I think the public interest is represented by American consumers rather than big auto corporations and big labor is neither out-of kilter and so morally bankrupt.

Back to Sen. Clinton. Anyone in FL: what does it mean that Meek's mother supports Sen. Obama? Is this just the Meek family covering its political bases?

If she repudiates the internationalism of 1993-2000, is she just another Kennedy Dem?

If her support is so heavily fem-based, is that a positive because there are more women than men?

When my sister, a Ph.D. and registered NC Dem, says she is opposed to family dynastic politics and says there are plenty of families not named "Bush" or "Clinton" who should step up and serve the country, does that reflect a widely held view?

"The Dems did not fall into a trap of letting "tough" talk define them. They fell into the trap of making a decision as important as war and peace on the basis of polling data and political calculation, rather than making in on what they believed after studying the evidence."

We're saying the same thing. In 2002 the Repub Congressional leadership rushed the approval of force resolution through congress so votes were recorded before the traditional recess to run home and campaign. Dems, in an effort to not appear 'weak' on terrorism, voted approval.

Now, the Republicans are tripping over themselves to look tough on Iran - and we see the Dem candidates lining up with the same irrational rhetoric about 'keeping all options on the table'. If they want to solve the Iran problem, theatening them with nuclear annihilation is a continuation of the Bush pre-emptive war doctrine that has prooven to be an incredible failure. Where's the bold leadership for a new, smarter foreign policy?

"When Gorbachev tried to reform Soviet society in order to better compete with the US, he let the freedom genie out of the bottle, and then lacked the political will to suppress freedom in the manner that previous Soviet dictators had."

Some would argue that such reforms were actually prompted by Carter policy that challenged the Soviets on their human rights record - not from Reagan's arms race strategy.

In any case, Gorbachev's efforts at reform are the cause of the Soviet collapse - Reagan is given far more credit than he deserves on the subject. He was in what they call "the right place, at the right time."

bsimon says:

"The Dems are falling into the same trap they should have avoided in 2002. They are letting the 'tough' talk of the Repubs define them, rather than proposing rational alternatives to bombing Iran."

The Dems did not fall into a trap of letting "tough" talk define them. They fell into the trap of making a decision as important as war and peace on the basis of polling data and political calculation, rather than making in on what they believed after studying the evidence.

Razorback, I actually buy Amercian cars (Toyota's made here in the U.S. -- the best made cars in the world) and I usually fly SAS, paying a bit more for the tickets than you would if you were flying a discount airline becasue the service ios better and I know that I am dealing with employees whomare well treated and will treat me likewise. That is why I do not buy the $4 prescriptions at WalMart...or shop there at all, for that matter. For me like myself, morality, right and wrong, counts for more than money. You could save a lot, as we have discussed before, if you used slave labor. By the same token, it would be a lot cheaper to fly to India and buy an organ from some desparately poor father than it would be a get on a waiting list here. Your twisted view of the "free enterprise system" is so out-of kilter and so morally bankrupt that no decent, honest person is going to buy into it.

It wasn't that speech that ended the cold war. Reagan won the cold war by challenging the Soviets to an arms race that he knew the US would win because of the superior technology that comes from market economy.

When Gorbachev tried to reform Soviet society in order to better compete with the US, he let the freedom genie out of the bottle, and then lacked the political will to suppress freedom in the manner that previous Soviet dictators had. Then he decided what the hell, that he could try to tear down the wall like Reagan suggested and be a hero.

"Is Hillary absolutely stone cold chilling..?"

Absolutely. The Dems are falling into the same trap they should have avoided in 2002. They are letting the 'tough' talk of the Repubs define them, rather than proposing rational alternatives to bombing Iran. Stoopid Dems can't learn from their own mistakes.

Not that Repubs have shown any evidence of such either.

reagan on rushmore -- LOL

"Reagan went to Berlin and said Mr. Gorbachev, if you want peace, tear down this wall. Mr. Gorbachev tore down the wall. Enough said. Reagan on Rushmore."


Clearly, had Reagan not made that speech, we'd still be living in the Cold War.

Reagan said the Soviet Union was an evil empire destined for the ash heap of history. At the time, he was ridiculed for saying it, but he was right and his critics were wrong.

Reagan went to Berlin and said Mr. Gorbachev, if you want peace, tear down this wall. Mr. Gorbachev tore down the wall. Enough said. Reagan on Rushmore.

gee razorback -- 9/10 of the posts here are yours. guess you don't have much else of a life...

Over the years, conservative America has transformed Ronald Reagan from president to icon to deity. You could see that in this year's first Republican debate, in which everybody on the stage was desperately trying to out-Reagan the others, hardly mentioning the current conservative occupant of the White House, and never, of course, reminding viewers of Reagan's divorce, his quadrupling of the national debt, his silence on AIDS, his debacle in Lebanon or the Iran-Contra affair.

To those omissions have been appended additions, as well, of equal veracity. The greatest of these, of course, is that Reagan defeated the Soviets and ended the Cold War. As we mark the twentieth anniversary of the Gipper's "tear down this wall" speech, a veritable Hollywood production of misty-eyed adulation is once again surfacing around this myth, on a scale Cecil B. DeMille would admire.

Cassandra, you should give up this silly notion of pretent consistency as applied to foriegn policy. Alliances and strategic interests shift over time. The US supported Joe Stalin at one time. We needed his help with Hitler. Was that wrong? Pakistan, Iran, and N. Korea do not all have to be treated the same at the same time.

JERUSALEM -- Talk about Syria is suddenly in the air here, but it is less clear whether the chatter is a harbinger of peace or war -- or only so much noise.

For months, Israel and Syria have sent signals that have alternated between bellicose and calming, leaving Israelis to speculate about the possibility of another summertime war and debate the merits of renewing negotiations with Damascus after a lull of seven years.

Israeli officials are reportedly giving serious thought to reopening talks. Some Israeli reports suggest the two nations have been in contact behind the scenes through intermediaries such as Turkey and Germany.

Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz confirmed Saturday that Israel has made use of a secret channel to communicate with Syria, but did not indicate what message was sent.

Cassandra, Iran thinks it has a right to retaliate over here whether we bomb them or not.

There are lots of things we can do besides bomb them. Economically for instance. That is, if we had a president who was interested in anythign besides oil. I mean it's just a coincidence that there's oil there, right?

"But, while quoting Hillary Clinton's speech as an example of "some much needed leadership," MoveOn made no mention of the fact that the same speech stated: "As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table."

http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=10808

Is Hillary absolutely stone cold chilling Cassandra?

But it's okay for Pakistan, right Razor? And it's ok for North Korea, too, right? Let's just bomb another country we FEAR may be developing a weapon and kill millions of their citizens -- a great many of whom and Jewish and Christian too]. Because they won't retaliate or anything over here.

Iran's population is over 71 million... several times that of Iraq.

"The Pentagon's most likely next target is Iran.

Hillary Clinton says "no option can be taken off the table."

Barack Obama says that the Iranian government is "a threat to all of us" and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table."

John Edwards says, "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." And: "We need to keep all options on the table."

http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=10808

Cassandra says take the military option off the table. Just let Iran know that when it comes down to it, we will do nothing. Im sure Cassandra thinks we should talk to Iran about nuclear weapons, but once Iran knows for sure that we will do nothing if they refuse to give up nuclear weapons, what else is there to talk about?

Breaking...

'Several new senior advisors have joined Fred Thompson's embryonic presidential campaign, including, in the foreign policy arena: Liz Cheney, a State Department expert on the Near East and South Asia, and daughter of Dick; Mark Esper, an aide to Bill Frist; and Joel Shin, who worked for President Bush's 2000 campaign. Nelson Warfield, a spokesmen for Bob Dole's presidential campaign and a longtime critic of Rudy Giuliani, will join as a consultant on television advertising.'

Freddy boy's quite the DC insider, isn't he? He's in with the neocon in crowd in every way. He's Cheney's candidate? I mean, Dick's. The one chosen to follow the Cheney legacy ['remake the ME'--take the oil money and run} --

[this was left out]

But what is absolutely stone cold chilling is Cassandra's apparant belief that its ok for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Major airlines all buy their planes from 2 suppliers, Boeing and Airbus for about the same price. Major airlines all get their fuel from the same 7 to 10 refiners/oil companies for about the same price.

What is the biggest cost differential between airlines? Labor. When you book online and use the "Sort by Price" function, you are basically finding out which airline has the lowest labor costs, and therefore the lowest fares.

MikeB, do you sort by lowest price or highest price when buying a ticket?

According to this morning's Washington Post, Thompson came out in favor of using a pre-emptive strike against Iran to knock out that nation's nuclear capabilities. Not so unexpected from a Republican right-wing hawk.

But what is absolutely stone cold chilling was Thompson's quote with respect to his motivation on why he wants to be President:

Asked about his previous statements that he had never hungered to run for president, Thompson said:

"More and more, I wish that I had the opportunity to do the things that only a president can do."

So, is it "the earth (mother) will inherit the meek"?

From the WaPo Editorial cited by Mark in Austin:

It's a pact between the world's largest and 11th-largest economies that would benefit workers, farmers and companies on both sides. As a democracy with a strong trade union movement, South Korea doesn't pose the workers' rights challenges that vex unionists in agreements with poorer countries. This deal would open the Korean market to a wide array of U.S. agricultural, industrial and cultural products and services; in fact, the political risks in South Korea are far higher than here. And it would demonstrate U.S. commitment to a vital region at a time when China is steadily gaining ground.

But forget all that; Ms. Clinton objects that South Korean manufacturers sell many more cars here than do American carmakers over there. Never mind that the agreement requires Korea to remove discriminatory tariffs and taxes on U.S. cars; never mind that U.S. tariffs on Korean cars can "snap back" if Korea doesn't keep its word. Not good enough, says Ms. Clinton. What more could she have wanted for Detroit? She won't say.

Why is it, MikeB, that US consumers buy those cars? MikeB, do you support taking that decision away from US consumers?

Mark in Austin - If this is true, I'll be celebrating. Mark, note however, that the U.S. branch of IEEE and the Programmers Guild have been writing letters, posting on blogs and forums, writing to candidates and generally raising hell about outsourcing and guest worker visas. If possible, we will draw enough support away from any candidate that advocates these anti-worker policies to cost them elections. So, if Clinton is actually listening, the country will be the beneficiary.

Todays WaPo editorial points up how different Sen. Clinton is from former Pres. Bill Clinton on the signature issue of free trade. Where the DLC is distinguished by its internationalist, market oriented, free trade positions as posed by Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin, Sen. Clinton has heard MikeB and is for shutting down the S.Korea Trade Agreement.

This probably will not affect her greatly in FL, except with JimD and other moderates who favor the DLC within the Dem Party over the populists and the FDR big gov social programmers, and who will look askance at her protectionist bent. She joins Edwards in this matter, apparently.

Chris, it's great to see you using more than just the post's poll to back your writing up these days. Clearly the polls are fairly schizophrenic this early in the race (I guess it's still early) but averaged out they tend to show a solid Clinton lead nationally and in most states. Whether there's still any edge due to name recognition left in that margin, I don't know. I suspect less than in previous election cycles (though I guess in previous cycles most candidates weren't even in the race yet).

Obama needs some great debate performances, more policy detail, and less regurgitated lines about hope if he wants to make any inroads against Clinton. I do tend to suspect that Obama and Edwards voters would largely go to each other if their man got knocked out, which is what makes the accelerated primary calendar so interesting. Will there be time for the anti-Hillary crowd to solidify around a single candidate after the first few states?