Andrew Sullivan pointed out this disturbing little diatribe by a well-established neocon:

All the damaging consequences of all the blunders the President has committed to date in Iraq are reversible in 48 to 72 hours - the time it will take to destroy Iran's fragile nuclear supply chain from the air. And since the job gets done using mostly stand-off weapons and stealth bombers, not one American soldier, sailor or airman need suffer as much as a bruised foot.

Let's look downstream the day after and observe how the world has changed.

First and foremost, there's this prospective fait accompli -- and it changes everything. The Iranians are no longer a nuclear threat, and won't be again for at least another decade, and even that assumes the strategic and diplomatic situation reverts to the status quo ante and they'll just be able to pick up and rebuild as they would after an earthquake. Not possible.

They don't attack Israel, they don't choke off the world's oil supply, they do not send hit squads to the United States, there is no "war" in the conventional sense of attack counterattack. Iran already has its hands full without inviting more trouble. Its leaders would be reeling from the initial US attack and they would know our forces are in position to strike again if Iran provokes us or our allies. They would stand before mankind with their pants around their ankles, dazed, bleeding, crying, reduced to bloviating from mosques in Teheran and pounding their fists on desks at the UN. The lifelines they throw to the Iraqi insurgents, Hezbollah and Syria would begin to dry up, as would the lifelines the double-dealing Europeans have been throwing to Iran. Maybe the Mullahs would lose control.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/09/the-argument-fo.html

Nutty as Ahmadinejad? Certainly seems so....Somebody stop the madness...

With what Ahmadinejad spewed, this might seem Emily Post, but I think Columbia really was negligent in not recognizing Iranian protocols for treating guests. I think one thing we all hope to do is win over the people of Iran. Dissing their leader, even a controversial one, using American standards of cultural etiquette is not something I would expect of an Ivy League college..

In the discussion of the big-dicked alpha-male Bush administration, why doesn't Faludi examine the roles of Karen Hughes and Condoleezza Rice and Harriet Miers?

_______________________________________________________

Because they are big-dicked alpha-male lappers....that's why. Good grief, we've all seen the sad evidence of their GW worship. They don't represent feminism, just because they are intelligent females. They still defer to the judgement of the testosterone impaired. And are loathe to admit to the real strength of women in leadership....and to the strength of great leaders of both sexes....it's not about kicking ass...it's about getting what you want...Condi is showing some of that, but belatedly. Let's hope she can prevail...

This isn't about backlash against women. It's about a backlash against a nuanced, strategic foreign policy, which, admittedly, women are more likely to possess because the ass-kicking thing is much more subtle in the fairer sex, but not exclusive to us....American males that don't want to bomb the hell of out every arrogant country have had their apron strings tied as well....Let us, as a nation, starting treating foreign policy as a chess game again, instead of a playground disagreement....

Chalk another one up. A battle won in the war on the rightwing propoganda machine....thanks Glenn.

Deserves a medal. And much more media attention....

Is so liberal it cancels out the extremist stuff and makes him centrist....thanks again Glenn, for pointing out how utterly inept the media is at gauging politicians. You rule.

I'm totally addicted to "Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares". I don't know why. I don't cook much...maybe because it's my husband wants to open a restaurant...but I'm addicted. He walks the line between being an unwatchable prick and a savior so closely....But to take him and make him more evil?? To throw him in among the truly clueless? It's like taking Hitchcock and turning it into "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." America. We can't do nuance. Sad.

I recall the story of a 12 year old girl, impregnated by her brother, whose pelvis was not large enough for a safe abortion, let alone full term birth. Dr. Tiller was her only option. My God people. Anybody that thinks they can judge the right decision in that case....go back and read the Bible.

Look at the living, breathing, cognizant children living in Iraq. Darfur. Prioritize people.

This is a perfect example of the media taking a position, that Obama's comments were elitist, and creating a problem for him where none should exist. The truth of the matter is more people know the names of the contestants on American Idol than they do the names of their Senators. George Will, of all people, had the gall to write an editorial about Obama being on a high horse. Sheesh. Obama needs to keep trudging along and avoid strategizing to the point he loses himself and his message. He is right. He needn't apologize.

Why was what Obama said a gaffe? Is it untrue? I could name personal family members, friends, acquaintances, who all fit the characterization. There is a reason George W. Bush was reelected. The rubes. America is a woefully uninformed country. We've lost our position as a respected world leader as a result. We've lost our treasury as a result. Obama spoke the painful truth. Let's face it, like grownups

This whole Obama thing....he used the "C" word....is almost surreal...I'm listening as I write this, to Sean Hannity, who adamently claims this was the worst thing ever said by a politician...yet every word he said is true. I can produce a relative as proof of each clinging type....