The recent postings on this subject have been irritating to read because there is no depth or insight into the problem at hand, which is supposed to be what happens next in the middle-east. There is nothing of quality here other than the usual leftist rants about Bush is a moron, jerkoff, etc., and evidence of lefty attempts to silence opposing viewpoints that differ from the San Francisco variety.

So, in contrast to the usual nonsense and silliness provided by devotees of Joe Conason and his ilk, I will provide something worth posting.

Bush is in a "box" because he can't meet the pre-conditions for openly discussing Iraq with Iran. Bush has been talking to Syria for years on everything from Lebanon to Iraq. Iran is a different story altogether. For openers, the US would have to concede that Iran will become a nuclear power in the region and the US would have to exit the region militarily. The Saudis are making sure that does not happen anytime soon because they need the US as a military buffer against the Shia and al-Qaeda. In other words, there is more complexity here than that what Move-on.org, Al Franken and Howard Dean can possibly absorb. Therefore, it is possible that the debate in Washington is more about picking sides in the post-Iraq confrontations rather than a timetable for withdrawal.

So guys, the challenge is tell me where I'm wrong while refraining from "Bush is a war criminal" or "I hate Bush".

I do not understand the fascination with Iran. The Baker Commission is handing Iran a diplomatic coup and a perception of influence over Iraq that extends way beyond their ability to deliver on any material aspect of a final settlement. By comparison, Baker says that "we talked to the Soviet Union for 50 years" and that saved the planet so why can't we have substantive dialogue with Iraq? We also had diplomatic relations with the USSR since 1933, both countries fought against Nazi Germany and agreed or disagreed on how to divide up Europe following the war. Also, having a Russian embassy in town probably saved the planet during the height of the Cuban missle crisis. We recently convinced China to put pressure on North Korea on their nuke program. Somebody needs to help me understand how Iran is going to influence events in Iraq in a manner analogous to the USSR and China. I don't think it is going to happen and I think the Baker Commission has made a strategic error in elevating Iran to "world power" status in the space of two weeks.

In fact, the US has to be careful not to be seen giving implicit approval to Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as quid pro quo. I don't know if this was raised as a possibility by the Baker Commission Report but it has been raised elsewhere (see Ephron:Newsweek).

This piece confirms that feminists are the unhappiest people I know and are generally underachievers. Why is that? Because in their world everything is a "zero-sum" game. In order for "me" to achieve what I believe is equal status, someone else must always lose. There is no real focus on true and equal opportunity for all, or a program of self-improvement that takes time, only a heightened sense of entitlement. The author is overly concerned about personal hypocracy by raising a son and continuing to be true to feminist ideology. Once again, she is playing the zero-sum game by positioning herself as the "entitlee" and her son as the potential loser. Is this a description of a narcissistic personality disorder, or what?

The buzz over Obama is driven partly because the Democrats have such high hopes in 2008. The minimalist feeling is that the Dems have to nominate the equivalent of a John Kerry plus a factor that spikes the turnout. Remember, all the Dems have to do to win is win one more state than John Kerry did and there are several states that are ripe to fall into the blue column. The hype over Obama is that there is a nascent feeling that he will deliver the needed "spike" in the turnout but there is also the huge question mark that he may not be able to deliver the equivalent of a John Kerry or a Al Gore between now and November 2008. The Dems have to be careful of a repeat of "where's the beef?" that sunk the Dems in 1984.