Talking About Iran

I have in my inbox a speech Nancy Pelosi delivered to the Knesset. This is the part about Iran. It pointedly doesn't include any silly "all options are on the table" posturing:

And together, we must have a simple message for Tehran, whose support of Hezbollah is well known. Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. The time to leverage all our power is now, and the way to do it is through diplomacy - with stronger sanctions and smarter policy choices.

Under Chairman Tom Lantos' leadership, the U.S. Congress is moving to put additional pressure on Iran by expanding and tightening our sanctions regime. I am certain that our Administration will use all of its influence with Security Council members and states in the region to see that they do the same.

Iran is not just an Israeli problem or a regional problem. Iran is a problem for the world.

I don't think that's that hard to do. It's also not all I would have to say about Iran policy, but considering the audience Pelosi seems to me to be getting this right.

Comments

It doesn't actually threaten military action.

But it's not good in at least two small ways. It elides Israel security concerns with those of the rest of the world, which is inaccurate, and in fact the blurring of the distinction between those interests is one of the big problems with US politics. Second, it asks nothing of Israel in contributing to the solution of this problem, when Israeli colonialism and aggressiveness is at the heart of Islamic countries opposition to US actions and demand for WMD.

More fundamentally, though one can't expect this to be mentioned publicly perhaps, this is a diplomacy now speech, but its emphasis on "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon" retains the war later option. In the long run, Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon whether we want it or not, if we give them enough incentives to have one. We need people saying no war with Iran whether or not it gets the bomb.

Posted by otto | April 1, 2007 3:49 PM

Well, I haven't seen the whole speech, but this one passage at least seems deftly evasive and ambiguous. While superficially calling for diplomacy, the message doesn't seem to contemplate diplomacy with Iran, but only diplomacy with other countries to tighten the screws on Iran in perpetuity, and compel ultimate submission without talks. And what are the "smarter policies"? Is that just a clever way of saying Israel can expect "the same policies, but smarter people implementing them" under the Democrats?

Pelosi's mission in Israel seems designed to assuage anxieties and further loosen up the flows of cash from pro-Israel groups to Democratic candidates. "Have no fear of Democrats," she intimates, "ince we have noted Israel-firster Tom Lantos working for our team to stretch Iran on the rack until it breaks."

But as you say, "given the audience" its is not clear that we can expect anything more imaginative from Pelosi at this stop on her tour. I'll be more interested in hearing what Pelosi has to say in Syria. If she uses the media pulpit only to berate Syria and publicly humiliate the government, we'll know this is just a pandering tour for Dem dedicated to me-tooism. But if she leaves some openings about more interesting changes in US policy and conflict-resolution efforts under a future Democratic regime, then perhaps we'll have reason to hope there is actually hope for a meaningful change in Washington.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 1, 2007 4:15 PM

Nancy needs to take the Iran option out of Bush's hands, at least for the time being, until we finish changing course in Iraq and rooting out all the incompetence, corruption and criminality in our government here at home.

We can deal with Iran a little bit later, after we have cleaned up here at home, changed course, and taken a stronger and wiser standing in terms of strategy.

Posted by Jimm | April 1, 2007 4:17 PM

Why shouldn't Iran have the bomb?

I know the obvious answer. Then again I know the obvious response.

Deterrence works. Time and again the Nuclear Club has posted signs on the door saying membership is closed. Only to let new members in. With no apparent harm done. India has the bomb, Pakistan has the bomb. Is there any rational reason that either would use one in a conflict over the Kashmir? Not bloody likely.

Do I want Iran to have the bomb? No, I am not even that excited that we have the bomb. But it would be interesting to see a morally clear argument as to why Iran does not have the same legitimate rights of self-defense that other major powers claim.

This is the insanity that got us into Iraq to begin with. Was there really any likelyhood that should Saddam have developed a nuclear weapon that it would simply have been allowed to slip out of his hands? And if not would he really have put his entire country at risk of being turned into molten glass to take out Tel Aviv?

There is more than a whiff of exceptionalism and White Man's Burden wafting around here. The logic may seem self evident but it isn't. Exactly why is it in the United States national security interests to keep Iran from having low yield nuclear weapons?

And given who we have in the White House appeals to "They are led by a sociopath" don't cut it.

That coupled with the fact that we have no real proof that Iran is pursuing a bomb and that its Supreme Leader issued a fatwah prohibiting it and the admittedly off-beat President of Iraq doesn't control the military in the first place and that even the most optimistic (if you can call it that in context) estimates puts development of an Iranian bomb ten years in the future is this really where we want to be putting our focus.

Not to mention the fact that we cannot prevent it. There is no military solution besides genocide that would prevent Iran from developing a bomb if they want to. Not a convenient fact, not a comfortable fact, but in order to dismiss it I would like to have a little more coherent argument than "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon." That is Bush style magical argumentation. Yes Saddam was a monster. No invasion and occupation was not the way to redress that.

I don't want to be too rude but after 9/11 too much of this country went into Chicken-Shit mode, willing to do anything, give up anything, sacrifice anything (that didn't actually take any of our money or put us in danger) lest we take a hit somewhere. Lets just say that we are not collectively acquitting ourselves like East Londoners during the Blitz.

People went all aquiver at the thought of North Korea getting the bomb. We spent billions of dollars developing a Star Wars system ostensibly to defend against that. Well North Korea has the bomb. Are you really sleeping any worse at night? If so why? Kim Il-Jung likes his scotch too much to have Pyong-Yang turned into radioactive glass.

Try this thought experiment. Imagine Tehran tested a bomb tomorrow and announced it had dozens more. Would this make an Israeli bombing attack more or less probable than it is today?

Mutually Assured Destruction. Sure its MAD. But to date and against expectations (I lived in Key West during the Cuban Missile Crisis) it works.

Posted by Bruce Webb | April 1, 2007 4:32 PM

Yeah, I'm sure that Nancy "4 years is too long for a war, let's set a deadline of next week to leave" is going to just terrify the Iranians. They suffered no consequences for the 1979 hostage taking (an act of war), and it looks like they'll suffer no consequences for the hostage taking last week (also an act of war).

So what do they have to fear from a Pelosi led policy? Harsh language?

Sheesh Matt, get serious. If you raised children using the approach that you want to use in foreign affairs, they would be the nastiest offspring imaginable. And no, that doesn't mean that I approve of beating children. It means that actions should have consequences. In your world, and in Pelosi's, the only consequence is mild irritation.

Neither children nor nation states respond to that approach.

Posted by James Robertson | April 1, 2007 4:57 PM

"Do I want Iran to have the bomb? No"

Me, I want Iran to get the bomb so everyone can STFU already. My view of the Middle East is the the whole region is one big scab, and anything that'll get Western Powers to stop picking at it is a plus.

Posted by Gibbon1 | April 1, 2007 5:10 PM

The middle east has lots of oil, which is what powers the economies of the world (not just the West). There's not a snowball's chance in hell that world powers will stop being involved in the middle east until or unless oil becomes irrelevant.

That's not likely to happen soon.

Posted by James Robertson | April 1, 2007 5:15 PM

"They suffered no consequences for the 1979 hostage taking (an act of war), and it looks like they'll suffer no consequences for the hostage taking last week (also an act of war)."

You're mistaken. Iran has suffered twenty odd years of ostricism in international circles, eight years of war fueled by the US and Europe and fought by Saddam's armies (back when he was't evil) and ongoing harrassment. Unfortunately, Iran will not be forgiven until it shuts up hands over it's oil supplies. Who cares that the oil will eventually run out and Iranians will be left with nothing?

Also, all I seem to hear lately is call for sanctions on Iran, much the same as those imposed on Iraq once Saddam was less than obedient. That seemed to work out well, what with the Iraqi's finally getting fed up with him and changing their regime on their own. The democracy there is truly an inspiration.

Posted by PGS | April 1, 2007 5:54 PM

Re otto

I have a flash for Mr. otto (aka David Duke). Iran is not going to be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Mr. ottos' accusations of colonialism on the part of Israel are part of the smear campaign which the Arabs have been waging for 58 years. The late and unlamented Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of this big lie.

Posted by SLC | April 1, 2007 5:58 PM

Furthermore, Mr. ottos' accusations of colonialism on the part of Israel are part of the smear campaign which the Arabs have been waging for 58 years.

Do we get to bring in the supernatural here?

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 1, 2007 6:07 PM

SLC, there really is no other word than "colonialism" to describe Israel's settlement policy on the West Bank.

Posted by SqueakyRat | April 1, 2007 6:10 PM

Well, whenever the settler movement in Israel hears that, their response is that they aren't doing anything in the West Bank now that's different from what labour zionists did during the mandate and there is a great deal of truth to that.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 1, 2007 6:14 PM

SLC:
On Big Media Matt's blog, it is traditional to compare critics of Israeli colonialism not with David Duke but with the famous aviation pioneer, Charles 'Lucky' Lindberg.
Get with the program.

Posted by otto | April 1, 2007 6:20 PM

Well, whenever the settler movement in Israel hears that, their response is that they aren't doing anything in the West Bank now that's different from what labour zionists did during the mandate and there is a great deal of truth to that.

Sure, they've been colonising the Palestinian arabs for a long long now. But this is scarcely a license for continuing to do so.

Posted by otto | April 1, 2007 6:22 PM

Am I the only one that felt a chasm opening up beneath them just at the words "Under Tom Lantos leadership"?.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 1, 2007 6:22 PM

No, Ed, you're not.

Posted by William Burns | April 1, 2007 6:27 PM

20 years of ostracism? Beyond the US, there's not been a heck of a lot of ostracism. The only reason the Russians stopped selling them nuclear tech is that Iran is unable to pay (and that has more to do with their idiotic economic policies than with any kind of sanctions).

Posted by James Robertson | April 1, 2007 6:54 PM

SLC -

Alan....Alan....Alan Dershowitz is that you in there??

Posted by chet | April 1, 2007 7:08 PM

Re otto, SqueakyRat, Ed Marshall

The Arab world considers that the creation of the State of Israel is a colonialist enterprise; the issue of the settlers on the West Bank is totally irrelevant. Thus, between 1948 and 1967 when Israel was not occupying the West Bank and there were no settlements, it was still considered an illegal occupation of part of Palestine. It is apparent that Mr. otto, Mr. SqueakyRat, and Mr. Marshall buy into this concept.

Re chet

I have no connection with Arab lover Alan Dershowitz who believes in a Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian State is in Amman.

Posted by SLC | April 1, 2007 7:26 PM

"This is the part about Iran. It pointedly doesn't include any silly "all options are on the table" posturing"

Someday, I'd love Matthew to explain to me the difference between "all options are on the table" and "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon". Because, to my eyes, they read the exact same.

Posted by Petey | April 1, 2007 7:51 PM

SLC is auditioning for "Al part III, the return of madness..."

Posted by Aha | April 1, 2007 8:41 PM

The Jewish state is a colonialist enterprise. The question is whether it will withdraw the colonies established on the land conquered in 1967 in order to try to make a deal with the people that have been colonised and ethnically cleansed. For reasons of ethnic chauvinism, deeply embedded in Israeli society and its US supporters, this seems unlikely. But one can hope.

Posted by otto | April 1, 2007 8:49 PM

Someone tell me again why anyone ever takes Nancy P seriously? She's for "smarter policy choices." Well, me too! Goes double for W!

And we need to impose sanctions -- but not just the U.S. "we" but the world "we". Uh huh. In her dreams. May we have a serious policy option, please?

W's a twit, but just because it's not what W would propose doesn't make it worth applauding.

Posted by ostap | April 1, 2007 9:33 PM

There is a reason that real conservatives (aka paleoconservatives) call Pelosi "AIPAC Girl." She's almost as bad as the neocons.

Posted by Real Conservative | April 1, 2007 10:42 PM

Matt— the Demo party is playing right up to Israel per usual. They may be better than Bush, but so is a riled hornet's nest at this point. No mainstream US pol deserves praise on Israel; I think even SLC can agree on that point.

Iran has as much a right to nukes as Israel and that's that. Personally, I think nobody should have nukes and people are insane for contending anything else— how dare James Robertson invoke "the children" argument while supporting Western nuclear hegemony. Yawnsville, you MAD democrats.

Posted by Gregorio | April 1, 2007 10:49 PM

The only 2008 presidential candidate at all criticial of Israel is Rep. Ron Paul, which is the MSM gives him very little coverage

Posted by Real Conservative | April 1, 2007 10:58 PM

"Iran has as much a right to nukes as Israel and that's that."

Yeesh. For the clue challenged:

Israel with nukes: unlikely to use them absent a "revenge" strike after a nuclear strike on Israel

Iran with nukes: No telling when they might use them - their leadership has apocalyptic visions involving the "hidden imam".

If you think Iran "deserves" nukes, I'll be waiting to hear you explain how the recipients of those nukes "deserved" death after Iran uses them. Unless Iran has a revolution, their leadership simply cannot be trusted - as has been obvious since 1979, right down to the British hostage situation today

Posted by James Robertson | April 2, 2007 12:45 AM

Put nothing past the neo-cons or the current hawks of the Knesset— just because they're wearing suits doesn't make them sensible.

Posted by Gregorio | April 2, 2007 1:23 AM

"Iran with nukes: No telling when they might use them - their leadership has apocalyptic visions involving the "hidden imam"."

Except that it was more radical guys like Khomeini who actually ended the Iranian nuclear program that was started under the Shah. Which of these situations look more realistic to you:

1) after becoming more moderate over the years and creating multiple centers of power following Khomeini's death, the Iranian ruling mullahs suddenly go batshit crazy

or

2) after seeing Iraq get knocked out for supposedly being near having nukes while NK supposedly already had nukes and was left alone, Iran thinks that having nukes would create deterrence via MAD. Also consider despite the fact that Iran helped us out in Afghanistan, we instead just ramped up the fiery rhetoric. Also consider that the whole "Axis of Evil" speech was like a dagger in the heart of the reform movement.

Now, which seems more likely? Are we supposed to believe we couldn't deter Mao - a man who said the deaths of 10 million people in Beijing due to possible American nuclear retaliation after a Chinese nuclear attack was no big deal that people shouldn't fear - but cannot deter a bunch of mullahs who have created a pluralised political system since their regime's founding? Maybe if the right spent 1/10 the time it spent trying to scare us about Iran on instead figuring out how to help stabilize Pakistan and secure loose nukes, we would be safer. If you want to make an argument against Iran having nukes because that would set off a regional arms race with Turkey, unstable Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and - of course - Iraq (and possibly some Central Asian states) wanting nukes, then that is a real argument, but this scare-mongering is just pure and utter bullshit.

Posted by Reality Man | April 2, 2007 1:25 AM

"Are we supposed to believe we couldn't deter Mao"

should have read

"Are we supposed to believe we couldn deter Mao"

Posted by Reality Man | April 2, 2007 1:28 AM

Too bad so many here are too politically correct to admit something clear as day to most rational people: Radical Muslims with nukes is not a good idea. You folks are far too complacent about the possibilities of nuclear warfare. Remember, there were a few instances where the U.S. and the Soviets came close to nuclear war -- and the Soviets weren't led by religious fanatics.

Pakistan is right now the scariest country on earth: if its secular military oligarchy is overthrown, and the nutters get their hands on Pakistan's nukes, all bets are off. Allowing Iran to get nukes -- where the nutters are already in power -- is a recipe for disaster.

We are not all the same. Radical Islamists -- whether Shiite or Sunni -- have different views about death than the rest of the world. Mutual Assured Destruction won't deter them as long as they believe that they will be in paradise after the second strike.

Posted by Fred | April 2, 2007 2:28 AM

Any idiot can say it's unacceptable for Iran to have the bomb. To make an intelligent point, you actually have to say what should be done about it.

Posted by Steve | April 2, 2007 3:27 AM

"We are not all the same. Radical Islamists -- whether Shiite or Sunni -- have different views about death than the rest of the world. Mutual Assured Destruction won't deter them as long as they believe that they will be in paradise after the second strike.
Posted by: Fred on April 2, 2007 02:28 AM"

The funny thing about radical Islamic leaders is that they tend to have other people do their dying for them. When was the last time you heard of the head of Hamas blowing himself up in Jerusalem? Never. Why do it when you can have some teenaged kid do it for you? If these guys really didn't care about their own deaths, they wouldn't go around with bodyguards, armored cars and the like. Considering that there are influential Christians in this country who want to see the likes of Russia or Iran nuke Israel or whatever, "Radical Islamists -- whether Shiite or Sunni -- have different views about death than the rest of the world" is a scarily inaccurate statement. The sentence, "Mutual Assured Destruction won't deter them as long as they believe that they will be in paradise after the second strike" would only make sense if every nuclear power was ruled by athiests, which the US, France, the UK, Israel, India and Pakistan are not. Just because someone believes in the afterlife doesn't mean they are ready to take a bullet train there. It isn't political correctness to point out shades of grey and it isn't intellectual courage to shit your pants regarding anything to do with Muslims. You are assuming they don't want MAD to work when MAD makes perfect strategic sense for Iran considering the US is now in countries to its East and West and has made threats against it.

Does that means I want to see the current Iranian regime with nukes? No, in part because of what might happen later if the regime collapses and the risk of loose nukes (more nukes anywhere in the world can lead to a greater chance of more loose nukes) and the dangers of a regional arms race. However, real men don't have to whip up stuff about Muslims to realize Iran with nukes is bad. You are putting a lot of different people, movements and ideas under the label "radical Islam." This lack of differentiation is what caused us to miss the Sino-Soviet split when it first happened (helping to get us into Vietnam) and to cause Americans to conflate Iraq with Al-Qaeda.

"Remember, there were a few instances where the U.S. and the Soviets came close to nuclear war -- and the Soviets weren't led by religious fanatics."

Besides the real example of the Cuban Missile Crisis - which was resolved with dialogue, negotiations and concessions on both sides (something the current crop of bedwetters in charge are against) - do you have any actual examples that weren't caused by computer error? Computers with errors don't care if an athiest or a radical Muslim is the one with the codes. The great thing about humanity is that we can learn from history and adapt. Iran has made overtures to the US for renewed engagement, which Bush has rebuffed. They helped us in Afghanistan. If we judge craziness by how regimes treat their own people, Kim Jong-Il is crazier than Iran's mullahs, but we were able to work out an agreement with Kim and to deter him. Engaging Iran has to be a real option. Even Christopher Hitchens has endorsed a Nixon-in-China solution as Bush-in-Iran to help solve this crisis by relieving tensions.

"Pakistan is right now the scariest country on earth: if its secular military oligarchy is overthrown, and the nutters get their hands on Pakistan's nukes, all bets are off. Allowing Iran to get nukes -- where the nutters are already in power -- is a recipe for disaster."

I agree with the first part about Pakistan, largely due to the fragility of the Musharraf government and its fragile hold of its own territory, as well as its history of proliferation. However, if you really took this danger seriously, you would focus your time trying to figure that out instead of trying to scare the shit out of people regarding Iran. The "nutters" in Pakistan that we fear are allied with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, both of whom can be combatted with better policies in Afghanistan. The "nutters" in Iran rule the country with one of the largest amount of blogs in the world. Radical Muslims in Iran and radical Muslims in Pakistan are not the same people, have the same allies or follow the same ideologies. Women in Iran are comparatively free compared to women in allied nations like Saudi Arabia. Personally, I would be more worried about the long-term possibility of Saudi Arabia with nukes than Iran with nukes.

Posted by Reality Man | April 2, 2007 3:41 AM

Radical Christians with nukes is not a good idea. Moderate Christians with nukes is not a good idea. Leather-clad atheistic sherpas with nukes— though kinky— is not a good idea. Nuclear weapons are a BAD IDEA. Period. Colon. Sphincter.

I am not being politically correct when I state that the Iranian populace does not reflect its leaders, just as the American populace does not reflect its leaders. Most people want peace and livelihood and are not radical by any stretch of the imagination. How many wars do you neocons have to lose before you realize that direct American intervention fails? Afghanistan, Iraq— it's over. Go home and learn diplomacy, you trigger-happy, history-blind dipshits. Stop killing poor people long enough to read the writing on the wall: The American Empire is Dead, Thank Fucking God.

And George Bush killed it.

Posted by Gregorio | April 2, 2007 3:41 AM

[i]Someday, I'd love Matthew to explain to me the difference between "all options are on the table" and "Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon". Because, to my eyes, they read the exact same.[/i]

One was said by a republican, the other a democrat. That is relevant distinction.

Posted by the invisible pimp hand | April 2, 2007 7:17 AM

SLC:

I have no connection with Arab lover Alan Dershowitz who believes in a Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

"Arab lover"?

SLC, I think the phrase you're looking for is "sand nigger lover."

Posted by ArgleBargle | April 2, 2007 8:12 AM

Re ArgleBargle

I would appreciate it if Mr. ArgleBargle would cease putting words in my mouth. I consider the use of racial slurs to be totally unacceptable.

Posted by SLC | April 2, 2007 8:43 AM

Can someone please tell me why Nancy Pelosi is giving speeches at the Knesset? After all, when was the last time any of our major legislators gave a speech at the House of Commons or at the Parliaments of Paris or Berlin?

Does the mere fact that this happened point to the power of the Lobby That Shall Not Be Named controlling this country?

Posted by aa | April 2, 2007 8:47 AM

"Radical Christians with nukes is not a good idea. Moderate Christians with nukes is not a good idea."

And if any of those had power post1648, I might be worried. However, they don't, so it's a nice attempt at blame spreading. The only radical religion around right now that's a problem is Islam. Christianity had it's violent era - but it's in the past, and highly unlikely to return.

Posted by James Robertson | April 2, 2007 8:54 AM

I consider the use of racial slurs to be totally unacceptable.

Ah ha! Yet more confirmation that you're a committed Israel-basher!

Posted by ArgleBargle | April 2, 2007 8:59 AM

Re ArgleBargle

Mr. ArgleBargle is a potty head.

Posted by SLC | April 2, 2007 10:02 AM

potty head

I'm very sorry to see that SLC (aka David Duke) has begun stooping to name-calling.

Posted by ArgleBargle | April 2, 2007 10:31 AM

Re ArgleBargle

The trouble with Mr. ArgleBargle is that he breathes out but he doesn't breathe in.

Posted by SLC | April 2, 2007 10:38 AM

I can see why some of you are more scared by Christians as you are by Muslims. Check out what the scary evangelicals are up to now. Meanwhile the Muslim Human Rights League is doing important humanitarian work.

Posted by Fred | April 2, 2007 11:27 AM

Re ArgleBargle

Since Mr. ArgleBargles' lame attempt to have some fun with Ms. Caroline Glicks' claims relative to the alleged transfer of chemical weapons from Iraq to Syria is getting a little long in tooth, I thought I would post a few links to some other sources making the same charge. This will provide Mr. ArgleBargle with some other targets for his attempts at humor.

Update: Apparently, there is a limit on the number of links allowed in a single comment. I will post one link below, although there are numerous independent links to articles on this subject which could be posted. The bottom line is that Ms. Glick is hardly alone.

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

Posted by SLC | April 2, 2007 11:50 AM

Mr. ArgleBargles' lame attempt to have some fun with Ms. Caroline Glicks' claims

Actually, the fun being had was not with Caroline Glick's claims, but with the claims being made about her hardheaded realism. But that's an easy distinction to miss if you're insane.

The bottom line is that Ms. Glick is hardly alone.

Ah, the "people on the internet have said something" standard of evidence. This is hardheaded realism at its very best.

Hey, did you know that the Asian tsunami was caused by India, working together with American and Israeli scientists? I certainly hope no one makes lame attempts to have fun with this! The people who claim it are all hardheaded realists. We know this because there are lots of them, all posting things on the internet!

So the only question that remains is: were India and the US/Israel using the Iraqi WMD in Syria? Possibly in addition to crop circles and the Loch Ness Monster? For the answer, tune in tomorrow...ON THE INTERNET.

Posted by ArgleBargle | April 2, 2007 12:39 PM

"and the Soviets weren't led by religious fanatics."

No they were led by Joseph Stalin. Not a fanatic I guess, just okay with Show Trials, summary executions and mass murder.

The argument from madness is itself madness. You don't have to like MAD. But the fact is that dictators are rarely suicidal, they tend to be all about self preservation.

Posted by Bruce Webb | April 2, 2007 1:34 PM

Jimbo: "Moderate Christians with nukes is not a good idea."

And if any of those had power post1648,"

Mr. R you might want to slow down here. Because you are perilously close to the "the white man can't get a break" mode here.

I mean personally I am all for the Enlightenment and if I was religious would be a Jeffersonian Deist, but the notion that all power was stripped from Christians in 1648 could to say the least be filled out a little better.

Posted by Bruce Webb | April 2, 2007 1:40 PM

Re ArgleBargle

Mr. ArgleBargle has not yet proved that no chemical weapons were transfered from Iraq to Syria. His continued lame attempt at levity only demonstrates his lack of seriousness.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml

Posted by SLC | April 2, 2007 2:37 PM

Thanks, SLC! True, Donald Rumsfeld's chief of staff Larry DiRita called those specific claims "absurd and without foundation."

But that's just what DiRita said about America causing the tsunami!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DO WE NEED ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE OF A MASSIVE COVER-UP AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS?

AND WHAT ABOUT FLOURIDATION?!?!?!?

Posted by ArgleBargle | April 2, 2007 2:56 PM

Re GargleBargle

Mr. GargleBargle gives a link from the Washington Times, the paper owned by the Reverend Moon. Even Caroline Glick is more credible then the Washington Times.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

Posted by SLC | April 2, 2007 6:27 PM

Good point, SLC! The Washington Times is famous worldwide for their intense hatred of the Bush administration and right-wing policies in general, so it makes perfect sense that they'd fabricate a quote from Donald Rumsfeld's chief of staff in order to make Bush and Rumsfeld look bad!!!!! Also, Donald Rumsfeld was known for liking his chief of staff not to object when newspapers fabricated quotes that made Rumsfeld look bad!!!!!!!!

It's incredible when you stand back and see how ALL THE PIECES FIT TOGETHER in the GREATEST CONSPIRACY MANKIND HAS EVER KNOWN.

So thank you, I really appreciate your hard work. Now that we've established the HORRIBLE TRUTH about WMD in Syria, I hope that we can work together to TELL THE WORLD about America's ANTI-MUSLIM TSUNAMI!!!!!!

Posted by ArgleBargle | April 2, 2007 8:06 PM

Re GargleBargle

Since Mr. GargleBargle considers the fascist Washington Times a reliable source of information, the following link from another fascist source should enlighten him.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21489

Posted by SLC | April 3, 2007 9:56 AM