Nobody Likes An "I Told You So"...

This headline - AP: U.S. to Give Iran Nuclear Technology - combined with this NY Times story reminds me of the Kerry-Edwards position on Iran that we heard about in 2004:

    

A John F. Kerry administration would propose to Iran that the Islamic state be allowed to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making, Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said in an interview yesterday.

Edwards said that if Iran failed to take what he called a "great bargain," it would essentially confirm that it is building nuclear weapons under the cover of a supposedly peaceful nuclear power initiative. He said that, if elected, Kerry would ensure that European allies were prepared to join the United States in levying heavy sanctions if Iran rejected the proposal. "If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Edwards said.

 

Edwards's notion of proposing such a bargain with Iran, combined with Kerry's statement in December that he was prepared to explore "areas of mutual interest" with Iran, suggests that Kerry would take a sharply different approach with Iran than has President Bush. The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since its 1979 revolution, and Iran was part of Bush's "axis of evil" that included North Korea and the former government of Iraq. Earlier this month, Bush declared that Iran "must abandon her nuclear ambitions."

...Experts on Iran have long speculated that some sort of "grand bargain" that would cover the nuclear programs, a lifting of sanctions and renewed relations with the United States would help solve the impasse between the two countries. But campaign aides later said Edwards was not suggesting an agreement that covered more than the nuclear programs. In the December speech, Kerry criticized Bush for failing to "conduct a realistic, nonconfrontational policy with Iran."

Oh, well, if Kerry pulls a long face and goes around saying "I told you so", well, I scarcely need more reasons to dislike him.

Meanwhile, does anybody think we should dust off Kerry's position on North Korea?

MORE:  Jon Henke has thoughts.  And the Captain actually provides some context for the Kerry idea, and links to the 2004 Iranian refusal.

Comments

[Lurker]

Several posts imply that the odds that Iran would reject this proposal are high and that the fact that USA offered this proposal puts itself in better light.

[topsecretk9]

Oh, well, if Kerry pulls a long face

I quibble TM...genetically speaking, I don't think he has to "pull"

[Carol Herman]

There's a reason Bush boasts the moniker of "being misunderestimated."

I'm thrilled to be reading Steven Lubet's book; which came because Glenn Reynolds' blurbed it. Lubet teaches law at NorthWestern. (A school I rate higher than haaarvard, these days.) And, Lubet makes his subject SO interesting! Examples abound.

And, specifically, you have, here, a decent professor, who knows his subject, and who knows how to teach.

Well, you can't have a World Championship of Poker, without knowing this particular game attracted some of the world's best players; and some, reconteurs, have written tip books on how to play this game. Doyle Brunson, A. Alvarez. James McManus (a professor in his own right.) And, then you get case histories. Including a Lincoln cross of a witness that included proving he couldn't see what he claimed he saw.

Anyway, Lubet shows ya how rules from poker, apply.

And, in this case, when you look at Bush "diplomatically speaking" to Iran; you should wonder about the art of the "semi-bluff."

In the semi-bluff you have a good enough hand to win; but others at the table may have cards that aren't "rags." But one of the tip top lessons is that you have to vary your play. In how you bet. So that others don't fold. When you have the best hand, and others are afraid of you; when you make your moves they fold. MEANING right before your eyes potential bets are fading; Going right out the window. So you win. But you don't win enormous pots.

Our president is being misunderestimated, in part, because our MSM always attacks him. There's just never going to be a good analysis made, here. (Remember when JFK went on TV, oh, back in 1962? People panicked that the Russians were putting missiles in Cuba. Nobody remembers that in the deal that came down the pike, JFK removed missiles in the Eastern Block that were aimed at Russia! Part of the cold war tactics. All people remember is that TV show. WHen the JFK addressed the nation from the Oval Office.)

And, I'll tell ya something. Because I was an adult back then, too. And, I watched Kennedy on TV. He got very high ratings. But in retrospect he also got very lucky. He was a lightweight. But he knew how to address the camera. I'd name FDR as being super at addressing Americans. And, I'd add Reagan, too. But not our current President, alas.

Still in the weight department our president is as committed to his vision as Lincoln had been to his own. And, Lincoln expunged slavery from our Constitutuion. Not an insane piece of cancer that was easy to remove.

In the same way, Iran is probably skirting the toilet bowl. (Just as the super soviets were all rattle, and they never built a strong country, based on logical economic laws.) Ditto Iran. A nut,who is actually eroding Iran's potential; playing games because he gets media attention. As did Saddam.

I did read, today, on the INTERNET, of course, an excellent piece (Ah. Up on the American Thinker). Where it showed the weaknesses Iran has. And, our President is at the table. I also think our President has "the nuts." (In poker parlance that means he's got the best cards in the hole.)

For a person who hates to gamble, I can sit mesmerized, for hours, with books on how the best play poker.

While our President does not get a break from the MSM.

Well, neither does Libby.

We've been discussing where the setbacks are. And, are not.

Again, Lubet's book (Lawyer's Poker), has given me a strong sense that Reggie Walton actually knows a thing or two about how to midwife a case. While I am not a lawyer. I do know if you're gonna be in the delivery room you're gonna hear screaming that would make people's hair stand on end. Today's my son's birthday. Believe me, labor was an eye opening experience!)

Most people have very mixed feelings about the "law." And, most are kept in the dark. Because they're not aware of what's happening even when they see this still coming at them on the news.

People do watch Court TV, however. Across a very broad spectrum of the population.

And, our President, who in 2004, proved he could get the crowds to wake at 4:00 AM, just so they could go to be with 60,000 others, waiting for the President and his wife to address a rally ... Should prove to ya that popularity isn't necessarly exposed by media polling data. (As a matter of fact, so many of us are now jaded. When the media says one thing it's almost automatic to be a Doubting Thomas.)

Iran's not ready in terms of owning a nuke. Israel says they're at least a year away. And, others say maybe ten years away. But you're not dealing with a nation of scientists, over there. As a matter of fact, while you'd say North Korea has starving people eating the bark off trees for food. And, their "dim" Il Jong is nuts; we lose sight of what happens when the Iranians have to face the lunatic in charge. What with his anticipated dress codes; and his internal laws that are making life miserable for a host of sectors in Iran.

Why are people sure that Iran wins? They're playing a terrible game. And, just like Vegas teaches ya about gamblers, when you throw caution to the winds, you'll eventually lose.

I'm also pretty sure that just because our President is not a galvanizing public speaker that he isn't playing cards well.

Ya know, the CIA totally missed the collapse of the Soviets. We also know a cabal inside the CIA has been playing a very nasty game against this White House. You know, that makes them useless advisors (or leakers) to the MSM, don't cha? Fed on garbage like that, you can really, really lose.

I

[Gabriel Sutherland]

The Russians did it already. Unless the Iranians want US tech then the US offer doesn't really offer the Iranians anything the Russians haven't already.

I still think the Israelis should offer the Iranians a nuclear reactor as long as Israelis get to operate it.

[MayBee]

Russia made a similar offer earlier, did it not? And was rejected.

Anyway, it's a process and what works tomorrow might not have worked 6 months ago. Iran doesn't want to change direction, so it isn't just a matter of offering up a nice alternative. Along with the carrot, there's got to be a stick, and I think we all know Kerry would be much less credible weilding that stick.

Bush only has 2 more years in office. Iran is at least 5 years away from a bomb. Bush could always just pull a Clinton and let the next guy deal with it. Rice would look cute dancing in the streets with Kim and Amadinajhad.

[Soylent Red]

Several thoughts:

1. Kerry's position on Iran is a direct ripoff of Thomas Barnett, which has a lot of similarities to what Clinton's stated strategy was with North Korea.

The idea that Kerry's Big Brain came up with it is demonstrably false. If he opens his mouth, there will be many folks who will then say, "I told you so too! Only 3 years before Kerry!"

2. Where the plan clashes with reality is that it only works when you're dealing with reasonable and pragmatic foes.

Little Kim has always been batty, thus North Korea was a horrible place to implement the strategy.

In Iran, when you had a relative moderate in contention with the rule of nutty (but low key) mullahs, it might have worked.

With Ahmadinejad you have a Persian Kim in place, plus the regular cast of nutty mullahs.

3. Can it still work? Mmmmaybe, IMO. But in an odd sort of backhand way.

The biggest threat to Iran is the rising up of the youth population. What Ahmadinejad and the mullahs are counting on is that confrontation with the West will distract people from noticing the high inflation, high unemployment and generally crappy economy, not to mention wanting Western goodies. Totalitarianism 101.

This could be a good way to diffuse all that, slow down the bomb making process a little, and maybe sow the seeds of revolt.

Which is why I suspect the Iranians will stretch out negotiations, and eventually back out with loud complaints of how we're trying to bully them.

That gives us time to hopefully get Iraq squared away, get a new administration in without the baggage, and plot Iran's demise. It also gives us the moral high ground when the time comes.

[MayBee]

Ah. Gabriel beat me to the Russia thing.

[clarice]

I think it is more the equivalent of going to the UNSC on Iraq. It's a fair offer and if the Iranis turn it down, it means further diplomatic initiatives are futile.

BTW Gateway Pundit and others have been reporting on widespread demos throughout Iran..Reportedly Ahmadinejad cannot even travel to half of the provinces because of widespread disaffection there.

[clarice]

It appears Mowlett's Ass has kept his perfect record. Here are the latest figures on the race in the 50th Cong Dist.
BILBRAY 51%
BUSBY 42%
13% COUNTED
AP has projected Blbray the winner.

[MayBee]

clarice- they are not losers. They are just ahead of the voting cycle.

[Rick Ballard]

Kiss Of Scorpio[n]

[Rick Ballard]

"Reportedly Ahmadinejad cannot even travel to half of the provinces because of widespread disaffection there."

He should fly more.

[Semanticleo]

Jeez, Kerry again.

It is more likely Colin Powell will be thinking "I told you so" as his old school
diplomacy seems to finally have sunk in with Condi. The top secretive MO of the Bush screed forces us, once again to speculate
that the silent auction between Powell and
Cheney seems to have left the bellicose
beefeater wiping steak sauce off his granite jawbone as Condi's epiphany seems to be producing fruit. Not that she is the sole
fulcrum for the softening of the moolahs, as the triangulations of state have forced numerous pressures from without. But good job on the Kerry bashing, Maguire.

[davod]

Diplomacy seems to have sunk in with Condi?
More like the Arabists are back in power. Cold war logic is back.

Didn't anyone read the Iranian letter to Bush?

If we are in this for the long term you will get nowhere placating the likes of the Iranian elite. It took over 45 years to break the back of the Soviets and Socialism. Do we want to start the same battle with Muslim extremism.

This war may take as long, or longer, than the Cold War, but appeasement is the wrong way to proceed. Too many people and countries fall by the wayside while the Foreign Office mandarins plot their next adventure in foreign capitals.

Just look at the photograph of the EU minister as he arrives in Iran to "negotiate" with the Iranians. The smile says it all. I'm Back.

[Lurker]

"BTW Gateway Pundit and others have been reporting on widespread demos throughout Iran..Reportedly Ahmadinejad cannot even travel to half of the provinces because of widespread disaffection there."

Yeah, saw that and hope it grows. This is what Victor Davis Hanson referred to in his article. He basically says, "Give 'em rope and they'll hang." He took note of this quiet uprising and how weak Iran government is. He predicts that Iran will collapse so we need to give them time.

Bush is known to be a poker player. He must know what he is doing.

I'm hoping Bilbray wins. Varones said that Bush lost in CA50 because of Bilbray's opinion on immigration.

[Lurker]

A Wizbang poster just announced that Bilbray won by 5000 votes.

Says that this makes Busby a two-time loser and a three-time loser in November????

[Lurker]

CA Conservative as of 4:27 am reports 11.47% of the votes counted, with Busby count at 12,326 and Bilbray at 11,317.

The Wizbang post announcing Bilbray the winner was at 6:21 am but the CA Conservative hasn't updated the latest results yet for the latest vote counts.

[Lurker]

Strata-sphere has the latest as of this time regarding Bilbray:

" The California Congressional seat vacated by jailed former representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham will remain in Republican hands, after a lobbyist and former GOP lawmaker narrowly defeated a Democratic school board member in elections held on Tuesday.

Republican Brian Bilbray beat Democrat Francine Busby after an combative and expensive race that centered on issues of government corruption and illegal immigration.

But with 90 percent of precincts reporting, Bilbray had 56,016 votes or 49.5 percent, the Associated Press reported, and Busby trailed with 51,202 votes or 45 percent."

Check his site.

He also has a post on the NSA leaks / Wilson / Pincus sources. Interesting...

[maryrose]

Lurker:
Thank you for the update. Conventional wisdom yesterday was Busby would have to break the 45% barrier. Looks like she didn't. Another MSM falsehood put to rest.

[lurker]

The good thing about the Bilbray win is that it is a sign to the dems that their chance of winning the house remain slim unless, as strata-sphere points out, any of the reps make a stupid mistake (e.g., Hastert AND Spencer). Too bad that Spencer will continue to make his mistakes but hopefully, the PA voters will choose a better candidate over Specter next time.

[richard mcenroe]

Clarice, between San Diego Goes GOP! and Democrats, CIA hid Eichmann! I've got my new signs for this week's countermarch.

[lurker]

ROFL!

Ed Morrisey referred to the connections between Jefferson and Akitu and NRO mentioned Nancy Pelosi's invitation to Jefferson to a members-only democratic meeting to explain his side of the story.

[Semanticleo]

You guys are right on one issue in the Busby/Bilbray thing; polls are just polls.

Miserably low voter turnout and a Rep.
win by 4.5% where Bush won by 12% in 2004 is
hardly cause for exultation. But, let the
delusion continue.

[clarice]

Instapundit wants to know--is Kos now 0 for 19 or 0 for 20?
Meathead's pre school prop also was roundly defeated.
Good work Kal-ee--for--nia

[Tom Maguire]

Miserably low voter turnout and a Rep.
win by 4.5% where Bush won by 12% in 2004 is
hardly cause for exultation. But, let the
delusion continue.

We are all about winning.

[clarice]

"moral victories" are for sissies.

[The Unbeliever]

Yeah, TM, but the Republicans didn't win the moral victory, just the electoral one! Everyone knows elections don't count, it's what the Democrats feel that really matters. Or something like that.

At some point, we're going to have to coin a new name for this type of "victory" that the Dems keep winning. Like a combination of "Pyrrhic" and "delusional", but I'm not creative enough to figure out what that should be.

[Sue]

Tom,

Let them have their moral victory. ::grin::

[MayBee]

I have no problem with Democrats winning. It's just the Kos school of democrats I have no desire to see succeed.

[clarice]

As dawn broke over the 50th Congressional District, R/S/S sipped his single malt whiskey. They laughed when he was practicing en espaniol "I am an illegal, Madam Busby, what can I do to help you in the election." And it hadn't been easy to find such a large size campesino outfit.
Well, here's to you , Mowlett's Ass. Keep doing that voodooing that you do so well in November.

[Semanticleo]

We are all about winning.

What do you mean 'we', white man?

[Semanticleo]

BTW; Maguire,

How about winning a live debate with Greenwald?

[JM Hanes]

Sleo

"But, let the delusion continue."

ROTFLMAO! You mean the one where a disenchanted public turns to the Democrats for leadership?

[Tom Maguire]

How about winning a live debate with Greenwald?

He hasn't challenged me. But your tiresomeness on this topic does challenge me.

But change the pace a bit! Go tell your friends that neither Doug Brinkley nor Joe Wilson have agreed to debate with me.

(Its vaguely possible that they have not agreed because I haven't challenged them, either, but maybe Semanticlown can get right to setting that up.)

[Jane]

BTW Gateway Pundit and others have been reporting on widespread demos throughout Iran..Reportedly Ahmadinejad cannot even travel to half of the provinces because of widespread disaffection there.

I asked my Iranian friend about that, this morning. Her family still lives in Tehran. They are hearing nothing about demonstrations, upheaval or uprisings. Now that's because all that information is blocked out in Iran, but it is too bad that the country is not getting itchy.

I also read something yesterday about Iranians sending money out of the country and that this was a sign that they thought war is imminent. She said that they have always sent their money out. No one has ever trusted the Iranian banking system.

[Carol_Herman]

It's not just an urban legend. In California IF you vote, your name goes to the courts, making you eligible for jury duty.

Once the summons arrives people are also discovering that ignoring them brings financial penalties. (Makes the court happy to get this money.)

And, since I've received summon's I've seen that the jury system changed, here, too. Because I remember a time you could volunteer. In other words, you could go to a nearby court (I'd go to the one in Alhambra), just to erase getting called into LA. I HATE THAT DRIVE! Let alone all the ensuing parking problems.

But on the last summons I found out you can't volunteer at all! You gotta wait to be called. And, then you do what you can when you fill out the paperwork.

Some parts of the system are devine. You can CALL IN EVERY DAY "to see if you are needed." And, then when the answer is to "report t'marra" you then do so.

Los Angeles covers 60 miles. It hasn't happened to me; but a girl friend had to go to a court about 30 miles away. Either she didn't take care of the inconvenience properly; or she wanted to have the experience? The case was big enough that hundreds of people were being interviewed. While, when she was there, not even six had been chosen. And, for some reason this nice Catholic woman got bounced. But it did cost her days and days of sitting in the courthouse, not knowing if she'd have to serve on a case that was expected to take months and months to show to the jury.

Again, there may not be a link, here. But lots of people avoid voting, and not just because they're too lazy. But because there's a "penalty" that you'll be called for jury duty.

You bet, at one time there was no need to summon people. Housewives, people between jobs, etc., showed up and volunteered. No longer. (Probably because it gave lawyers fewer choices?) But the way people avoid jury duty shouldn't be discounted, either. Is this just in California?

[PaulV]

kossian komic lost?
kossian unwin?
kossian moral near victory

[clarice]

In D.C. we are called more and more frequently. The number of people who are eligible to serve is small and must supply enough jurors for both the local and federal system.

We have a one-day one-trial system, however. That means if you are not selected to sit on a jury, the day you show up, you are released until the next summons. So many of the cases here are drug cases and defense counsel is just testing to see if a jury can be empaneled on the day of trial...that means as soon as it is clear that there are enough, the case settles.

[Rick Ballard]

Kosmic Victory?

[clarice]

Perfect. BTW when it comes to TAC, the goddess wants you to know she thinks moral victories are for masochists.

[Rick Ballard]

Meebe Kosmetic Victory works better. A Kosmetic victory covers up a loss - that sounds right.

[clarice]

LGF makes it official and answers Instapundit's question: It's 0 for 20 for Mowlett's Ass.

[Cecil Turner]

Seems to me this is much ado about very little. It's only an issue if the Iranians accept it, which I sincerely doubt. The idea that the EU, Russia and China will suddenly develop a stomach for meaningful sanctions is not plausible.

How about: Karmic Operational Setback; Keeling Over Slowly; Keeping Our Shrill.

[clarice]

Ledeen asks in today's NRO "Is CLinton Still in Office?" He apparently doesn't like the offer.

Verner, that VF piece is an astonishing piece of shit. Amazing there is still anyone willing to shill for the VIPers.

[clarice]

Speaking of real--versus pyrrhic victories--what would make me happy is to learn that Californians willl now sue Reiner for the $23 million in tax revenue he misapplied to his lost referendum on pre-school. C'mon guys, make my day.

[lurker]

Verner's question is in the other thread.

So sad that Craig Unger's article will be believed by the left-wingers...

[lurker]

Reiner being sued? Wow! How about Michael Moore being sued? Hope they lose.

[Carol Herman]

Thanks Clarice for describing the DC jury system. You did it so quickly, too. Since, we out here in California are also on the "show up one day" and if you're not called ... etc.

However, there's a bonmot. Since BEFORE you show up, and for the first week, you MUST call in the night before. Most of the time you're told you're not needed the next day. But you still have to call every day for the week; plugging in your jury number into a mechanical call.

I've also heard that NOT responding to a summons, and being "cute," saying it wasn't delivered, still costs a $200 fine. Not sure if this is true, or an urban legend.

But the "old" system has indeed changed. Including that it's now computer generated. To speak to a human you have to go to a little window in the jury rooom; and bend down and speak into the little opening in the window. While all the jurors who come are "treated" to the "airline stewardess bit" where everybody listens up to the "rules." No floating devices under the seats, though.

By the way, up at DRUDGE, he's running the headline that Paramount REMOVED Algore's name from the movie! They're saying it's not a "political movie." And, Drudge added the movie's just made $2-million since its "limited" release. Gore's career seems to be melting.

It seems there's a GIANT BRONX CHEER going up across this nation; as the MSM keeps hoping they're interfering with Bush's positive momentum. So far, karmic or not, I don't see setbacks. Just Edsels. With the donks taking the chrome (from their tin foil hats, I guess), and adding them to their unsold carloads of crap. Who says Karl Rove isn't a genius?

When Bush came to office, the donks said he didn't even know the names of country leaders. But now who does? So many of them have disappeared from the scene. And, Bush, in his cowboy stance, even has putin worried.

Well, it's still POKER. And, that means poker faces. You won't be reading the rags in the hole if all you do is squander your attention on the bluffs. But go ahead. Most people, playing poker, sit in their underwear. They're stripped naked. Or they lose money. Once the money losses add up, if Vegas is to be believed; a lot of gamblers LOSE. (And, then Steven Lubet says that POKER, played by serious players, is not a gamble at all. Just a very keen sense of what the odd's are.)

What have the donks got, though? "New math?" To much PC feel good crap interferes with common sense.

[maryrose]

Busby to illegal immigrants: You don't need no Stinkin papers to help me steal the election.
Recalls DeLay's famous quote in 2000 in Miami Dade County-"Theft in Progress"

[crosspatch]

Uhm, just a minute folks. What is going to Iran is NOT a US proposal. It is a French/German/British proposal that we agreed to give a try as it was the last best chance to get Russia and China on board and present a united front.

Giving nuclear technology can mean many things and so far we don't have any clue as to exactly what is being talked about here. In and of itself the words mean nothing. We could be giving them technology that makes it less likely to result in weapons development (pebble-bed reactors?). Until we see exactly what is in there, we are simply guessing and going off on tangents isn't exactly productive.

So far what I have heard is spare parts for civil airliners and vague references to "nuclear technology". My own tendancy to go off half-cocked notwithstanding, I believe this is a case where we are better served by waiting to see exactly in there before we start the hand wringing.

[Jane]

It seems to me what is going on with Iran is an attempt to put our allies in the position where they can't back down, saying we didn't rely enough on diplomacy. Nothing more.

[clarice]

I agree, jane..

[lurker]

That is what some of the articles have been implying by describing that luncheon Condi had with Bush and Rummy. Hence, a poker game being played.

Ya think Iraq would agree to permanent halt to its current uranium program? I doubt it.

[Les Nessman]

Ouch!
Cleo sure got quiet after TM spanked him.
Poor little cleo.

[windansea]

Cleo sure got quiet after TM spanked him.

Cleo likes being spanked, after all he/she/it is a lefty no??

[paul]

Give them the tech.

We created a bomb on a theory 60 years ago, and these morons are still banging rocks together, in the attempt to make nuclear fire.

Would Europe fall for this bluff and suddenly become assertive with Iran? Nope.

Would the world react differently to him, expressing the desire to wipe Israel off the map, knowing he HAS a nuke? The classic MAD scenario plays out, but any action committed by Iran would only assure their own destruction. Perhaps it would best be called the SAD scenario-singly assured destruction.

They share the info with terrorists who are caught trying to use it? The coaliton that would deal with Iran, would exceed Gulf War I.

The whole scenario doesn't even begin to address the domestic unrest that would envelope Iran. The mullahs aren't exactly in a position of power in Iran, and the Shia religion is moving back to a liberated Iraq.

[clarice]

Funny you should mention that, paul. Today is the 25th anniversary of the day a handful of Israelis took out Osirik.

[paul]

CA-50:

In 2002 the dem got 50,202 votes.

In 2006 the dem got 55,587 votes.

The % victory is close, but the increase in turnout was only 7%. The 'increase' in support is markedly similar Hackett, running against a weak candidate, in Schmidt.

NB-In 2004 Busby got 105,590, although a Presidential year. she lost 48% of her support. If dems want change, they certainly don't vote like it.

[paul]

Clarice-

Personally I don't want nuke proliferation but here is the best analogy:

A crazy guy is waving his arms on the street telling every passerby that he is going to kill them. Nobody takes him as a threat.

Headline, well actually page 50:
"Mentally Ill person taken to a Hospital"

Same crazy guy goes down to the corner and starts waving a gun around saying he is going to kill everyone.

Headline that night:

"Police Justifed in Shooting Lunatic".

This thing could play out for years, or we can end it quick. We just need to put a gun in Ahmadinejad's hand to end this slow dance.

[Javani]

""Edwards's notion of proposing such a bargain with Iran,"

This is not an example of Kerry forsight but adopting as his own idea a Russian/Euro plan. Kerry didn't invent it. Also, the Mullahs rejected it.

".....combined with Kerry's statement in December that he was prepared to explore "areas of mutual interest" with Iran,""

Combined? That was Kerry's cue to the Mullahs to make Bush's life more miserable in Iraq. Playing with the big boys here.

[PeterUK]

Dr Hans Knees and Bumpsadaisy,says the, the nuclear genie ccan be put back in the bottle

[Jane]

We just need to put a gun in Ahmadinejad's hand to end this slow dance.

I don't agree with that if we are looking for the right outcome. That makes the whole adventure as scary as the Cuban Missile crisis. The Iranian people love Americans. But they would rise up against us in a NY minute if we attacked them.

What I think we have been doing for quite a while now is supporting their pockets of unrest. (At least I hope we are doing that) I think we have people in there doing that everyday, in the hope that the people will overthrow their own government.

The problem is time. I have no doubt the Iranian President would like nothing else than to try and end the world with nuclear war. And I believe that the Iranians are very far ahead of where we think they are in the nuclear race. So this is a chess game. Condi Rice is our very own Machievelli and my money is on her.

[clarice]

Jane, we agree again.

[paul]

Cuban missle crisis was a completely different circumstance.

They were Soviet misiles.

The cold war was characterized by the paranoia bewtween two sides, worrying about a 'weapons gap'.

The imbalance between Iran and the US makes any cold War comparison moot.

The only way the world stops this, and it will take the world, is to be sufficiently provoked into action. Why wait for the inevitablity of letting it grow stagnantly into the MSM making it into another Cold War?

The threshold will come when he gets a nuke...the world is just waiting to be forced into a decision.

[Semanticleo]

(Its vaguely possible that they have not agreed because I haven't challenged them,)

Yes, vaguely possible since you are, no doubt. unknown to them. Makes it easy to dodge a debate under those circumstances, don't it?

[paul]

I do concede that the Iranian unrest is waaay underplayed in the media, as many of their upper middle class were educated abroad.

A nuke does not give the mullahs any new power over the people, and would more likely push the unrest deeper.

A moderate Iranian hears that his country is developing a nuke and their is pride.

If a moderate Iranian sees Mo Am with a nuke shaking it at the countries that could wipe them out and moderate Iranian will say, "He's got to go."

[Jane]

Cuban missle crisis was a completely different circumstance.

The analogy with the Cuban missile crisis had to do with the intensity and immediacy of the situation Paul, not anything else. And I admit you had to live through that to know what I'm talking about.

[paul]

My father was called into active duty, didn't see him for 2 months.

[windansea]

Cleo appears lost

Attention shoppers...we have a misguided lefty in aisle 4

[maryrose]

windansea;
You have a great sense of humor!Is it a blue light special on aisle 4.

[Semanticleo]

Let's see if Maguire can find his way back.

[Lurker]

ROFL!!

OT:

In case you're interested in getting a good US flag with the proceedings going to the Armed forces, go US Flags

[Extraneus]

Who thinks this will end up being an all-out, terrible World War, that'll make past wars look tame by comparison, with us having to incinerate millions of Muslims in order for the survivors to feel defeated enough to repudiate their own fundamental religious tenets of putting the sword to the necks of all unbelievers? Enlightened and non-judgemental as I am, I unfortunately do. There's no evidence that Islam is a religion of peace. None. Quite the contrary, in fact, as only willingly blind observers can deny.

Back to the topic, I agree this is a reasonable diplomatic move, well-designed to get Iran and our "allies" to show their cards.

[windansea]

Let's see if Maguire can find his way back.

TM is playing lacrosse this afternoon :)

[Specter]

Tic,

So let's see...you were debating about whether or not the Republican win in what dems termed a "must win bellweather election" was really a win. It was. Dems got trounced. Not by the biggest of margins I'll admit, but when you consider that Busby was the DemoNcrat poster child for "Culture of Corruption", and that it was in Duke Cunningham's district, if people really bought into that crap she would have won. She didn't. Doesn't look to good for dems in the fall.

Oh I know....since you couldn't win that conversation you CHANGED THE SUBJECT AGAIN. Same as always. Get a Grip!

[maryrose]

Hey Cleo-We won you lost-get over it. It's a republican district-as of yet I'm still waiting for a dem plan that's tough on terrorism and no I don't think illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote as Busby obviously does.
Extraneus- I don't think the war will get to be that bad. We need to wait and see if Iranians themselves get rid of their crazy leader-if not -we send an operation to take him out.

[PeterUK]

World wars require protagonists with the industrial capacity to equip and supply the military,in the absence of that there must be powers capable of doing that task.
There are no nations within the Islamic world capable of fulfilling those requirements.
The conflict will be as it is now for the forseeable future,there may be a nuclear attack on the West,but unless there is an abject surrender by the ruling elite,public opinion will insist that the perpetrators go into the rubbish bin of history.
The worst danger is that there will be continuous and gradual surrender by appeasement to continued physical and propaganda attacks,working against us through our own liberal systems.

[mark c]

would it be safe to say that romantic sleazo and his friends are "at words for a loss"?

[maryrose]

markc
they have nothing to celebrate at Kos they are 0 and 20 as far as elections go.They continue to be LOSERS!

[Extraneus]

So PeterUK, you figure we'll never have the need to get mad enough to take the gloves off, since they'll never get powerful enough to rate an all-out military response? Maybe you're right. I was thinking when I read about the fantasized beheading of the Canadian Prime Minister, that had it actually happened, it might have precipitated a commensurate response, and that maybe such a thing as a nuclear attack might someday do so as well. Perhaps it'll always stay below that threshold, though, with the world sleeping away in the bliss of denial and the bar moving farther and farther away. That's sure how it seems.

[Specter]

Extraneus,

I think the real fear is that Israel will do something pre-emptive in nature. That will cause a lot of problems - especially with lots of arms dealers ready to sell to both sides.

[maryrose]

Regime change is possible in Iran and if necessary we will use that option. I feel safer knowing all options are on the table. With dems in charge that would not be true.

[Specter]

If the dems were in charge we'd be offering them used calutrons from Tamiyra.

[JM Hanes]

Extraneous

What Islam (as opposed to the jihadis) could use is a Reformation of its own, not incineration. Christianity was not always a religion of peace either, as you might recall.

[Specter]

But we only have Two...I repeat Two questions....What are.....I mean we only have three questions....

[PeterUK]

Extraneous,
The problem is that the headhackers were in the main Candian citizens.Many of these affairs are Fantasy Island for the participants,ordinary juvenile loop the loops groomed on the internet,but it only needs one to succeed.
If there is a "mastrmind" behind this there is sufficient plausible deniability. Difficult to counter unless we use the "We don't care who it is,if anything happens were are coming for you approach",make our enemies responsible for our safety.
It is worth remembering that none of the terror leadership engages in suicide operations.

[PeterUK]

Oddly JMHanes Christianity began as a peaceful religion,it was only after it was coopted by the Romans that the old barbarian habits were adopted.
As a side bar,all the Middle East,except the Arabian Peninsular, was Christian before it was Muslim.

[Extraneus]

Although I in no way referred to Christianity or care about it's comparison with Islam, I'm not sure the moral equivalence argument is valid in any case. I haven't read much of the Bible, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in there which espouses slicing the necks of non-believers, or killing them by any other method. If there was, I would think devout Christians would be pretty dangerous people.

[maryrose]

Extraneus:
these brutal beheadings are a distortion of the religion of Islam which is a peaceful meditative religion. It's a shame the terrorists have regressed to barbarism in their quest for power and dominance.

[richard mcenroe]

Semanticleo — How many sites are you gonna post that whinge on?

Clarice -- Semanticleo ain't been much for winning, last few elections...

[clarice]

What's actually like uh winning compared to moral victory after moral victory? Ask any masochist.

[Soylent Red]

Extraneous:

I just don't see this as a clash of religion. And I agree with PUK that this will not result in world war. Both for the same reasons.

While religion is involved, the homicidal impulses are not necessarily directed at Christianity. They're really more directed at the West, specifically Western influence, which is historically Christian.

But "Christianity" and "the West" are used by Muslim fundies interchangeably, even though most of us in the West understand they don't always go together.

Where their problem lies is in the secularization of Western society that they see, and the effect that a similar secularization of their societies (or incursion by elements of our culture) would have on their particular version of Islam. Sharia is not just a set of religious laws, it's also a set of civil laws. So as they see it, secularization of government will lead to societal breakdown.

So in the best possible scenario for the jihadis, they would be able to have all the technological trappings of free western societies, without the free governments or religious freedom. Osama has basically said that his vision is a unified caliphate free of Western political and social influence.

So what is set up is a struggle between two competing frameworks for globalization:

1. The Western vision of globalization, based on trade between countries with religious freedom and secular governments; and

2.The fundamentalist Islamic vision of globalization, based on an insulated Islamic axis under sharia that seeks to expand their global size and influence through intimidation and conquest.

Why none of this will lead to world war is that our vision is currently the more popular vision across cultures, and the one that has been proven to lead to progress. Outlyers from both systems will tend to swing toward us when given the chance, because everyone but Muslim religious fanatics see that the deck is stacked in our favor over the long haul.

Thus, worst case scenario, you have maybe ten countries, none industrial or economic powers, contending against the rest of the world. And of those maybe ten countries, all are dependent on the competing bloc for things like oil trade, economic assistance, arms, etc.

If or when Iran starts waving nukes around and mucking things up economically for our side of the equation, the whole world will be waiting in line to straighten them out.

The problem is convincing them of that, when right now the West appears to them as fractious.

[clarice]

It's mostly about sex, Soylent. If you are at the bottom of the world's shitpile, the one thing you have going for you in that culture is that you have the right to enslave your women . At the same time, all the prohibitions on sex makes it impossible to think of much else.

And for this, the dummies are willing to endure kleptocracies, poverty, the total inablity to control their fate. I say, flood the souks with cheap porno dvds and drive out the beheading tapes.

[Soylent Red]

Clarice:

You got that right. Their paranoia about secularization of culture is deeply rooted in their weird sexual repression and misogyny, as outlined in sharia.

Thus weird hangups drive adherence to sharia that perpetuates weird hangups, and so on.

Iran will be an interesting case though. Lots of hormonal youngsters milling around there looking for a way to let off some pressure, and the women are starting to feel the stirings of equal rights. Will human nature prevail?

Maybe we should drop Camille Paglia on them...

[Soylent Red]

Sheep in that part of the world must be the most forebearing creatures on in the universe...

[richard mcenroe]

So, here's the question: when the Iranians scorn this deal, the very Kerry/Edwards deak, as they will, what will the Democrats do to obstruct Adminstration policy on Iran then?

[clarice]

My husband and I stood up for an Iranian "Moslem" wedding this weekend. My son was best man at one a couple of years ago..They are Zorastrian. The officiant made clear their contempt for the Arabs--they were forcibly converted centuries ago and no matter what appears on the surface, most of them hate the mullahs and sharia with every fiber of their body.

[richard mcenroe]

clarice: A Democrat masochist's "safety word:"

Hillary.

[clarice]

The conflict in Europe is over the same thing. In Europe and the UK the young men all have what they call their "slags" or Putas who are European, and their arranged marriage wife stuck at home and see it their duty to keeop all the womenfolk toeing the line. They cling to shaira for their women but are in fact seeking the privileges of both societies at the same time.

[clarice]

RM, has anyone visited Kos today to see how he's basking in yesterday's "moral victory". I do think Mowlett's Ass was Rove's finest creation after Shrum.