http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/20/AR2007092002701.html?hpid=topnews

A "suspected nuclear site" admittedly, whicht US intelligence apparently provided "corroboration" on.

Wonder what the fallout of this little nugget will be.

At worst, then, that vote will splinter and Giuliani will be the recipient of those who care most about war and terrorism, a group I'd say is definitely the predominant faction in the Republican Party these days.

Fair enough. But will that necessarily translate into sufficient voter turnout to get him in? There've been rumblings for awhile that the fundamentalist wing (which provides a lot of the grassroots organization) are feeling sufficiently 'used' by their nominal allies in the GOP they may not go all-out in the upcoming campaign.

Additionally, does Guiliani have sufficient support of corporate interests to keep his campaign viable? Most of the news these days are on Thompson's woes, but last I heard Rudy's bunch aren't in much better shape.

I mean does anyone think Giuliani is remotely serious about pushing this idea into an actual policy position, given there is only the most remote chance that anyone outside the neo-con cesspool would even be receptive to it?

Its quickly becoming clear Giuliani has neither the standing nor ability to push this or any other proposal into action even he was elected to the White House. Yes, he may have the ear of the neo-cons at the moment (but that's only for the moment). Yes, he may be able to bully elements of Congress to sign off on some of whatever agenda he posits (that's provided the same leadership remains in place).

But let's also keep in mind NATO is an international alliance, and thus whether a given country is given membership is NOT dictated solely by the United States. NATO doesn't want Israel added to its roles. The Israelis don't want to join it.

This whole idea is a sad joke, as is the man supposedly pushing it. Can we please treat it as such?

FYI, Egypt invaded Israel in 1973.

Egypt invaded the Sinai, which Israel siezed in 1967, and did not advance beyond a shallow strip on the west bank of the Suez Canal.

At no time did Egyptian formations advance into Israel proper.

Actually the NATO proposal is more than a year old

and it originally came FROM NATO and from the EU

I'm willing to afford you the benefit of the doubt here. Provide a link to back up this claim.

Isralies, I can think of no ally that more deserves our continued support, or increasing support, than Israel except for Britain.

I'm not a jew but Isralies have helped make America the amazing place that it is.

In what way has the state of Israel "helped"?

Pray explain yourself.

but the beltway punditocracy will welcome such a proposal and push for it.

A fair enough point. They'd also like to the Stars-and-Stripes flying over Tehran, too, but it ain't gonna happen.

I'm far less concerned about what the punditocracy wants and focused a bit more on what we as citizens can do. Encouraging mockery of them seems as constructive a start as anything.

Sorry I'm busy now

You expect to ever be taken seriously?

Poor, lazy sod.

Does the US not have a right to negotiate anything with other Nations?

Yes, it does.

What the United States CANNOT do is simply decree a country be made part of a transoceanic political/military alliance of sovereign states WITHOUT the agreement of the other members of that alliance.

Rudy's joke of a proposal is the reverse of this small reality.

I don't think Rudy is dumb enough to decree anything before he is King.

I can't argue there, writebrite. Unfortunately Guiliani's record speaks a bit differently.

And for the record, I will grant my original comment was perhaps a tad overstated. Thanks for catching that.

you are so far from reality.

Is this snark, satire, a joke, or deliberate irony?

Note it cannot be a serious thought. No-one, including George W Bush, is this delusional.

Perhaps I've over-read, but somehow I feel like several of the discussants think the majority of Jews are involved with AIPAC and AIPAC is virtually singlehandedly responsible for the war in Iraq.

For myself, I don't believe AIPAC is even indirectly responsible for this insane march into Babylon the current Administartion has undertaken. I don't believe it was done at the behest of or with the intended benefit to Israel or any kind of 'Jewish lobby' (which I also don't believe exists).

I'm sorry if any of my comments came off as even remotely anti-semetic. I'm frankly utterly agnostic on the issue of religion and prefer to focus on the practical and political aspects of issues. Modern nation-states have an abundance of motives behind their actions, religion being only one of them and often used more as a cover than a sincere reason. Objectively speaking, Israel is little different from its neighbors in that respect.

My issue with Guiliani's proposal is how it either demonstrates a profound ignorance on Rudy's part about NATO and international relations, or his willingness to deliberately inflame passions that should otherwise be left alone. I'm not setting out to bash Israel, but neither am I going to hold up as a paragon of virtue.

Sorry if it came out any different.

How about, Eqypt launched a full-scale conventional military attack against Israel in 1973, but failed to successfully invade Israel due to the latter's good fortune in having a sizable buffer zone.

The fact Egyptian forces (quite rightly) declined to push further than their intial landing zones and Sadat actively resisted Syrian calls for a larger offensive in the Sinai (which did NOT originally belong to Israel, remember) bespeaks a desire on Sadat's part to avoid the sort of reversals that ultimately happened. This included Israel invading Egypt proper again on October 15-17 and nearly wiping out the Egyptian Third Army.