So this one rests on at least 2 unproven and even specious assumptions:

1) That Iran is just around the corner from having nuclear weapons and ICBMs

2) That Iran will nuke Israel

The second is by far the more laughable one. It's well known that Israel has second strike capacity and if they didn't, it's highly likely the US would strike second on their behalf in the event Israel was nuked.

It's also understood that nuclear weapons are highly traceable to nation of origin, so the plutonium or uranium used in such a device would leave a giant fingerprint the world could use to know whodunnit if it was in the form of a "suitcase" bomb (note: experts do not believe a nuke could be made that small).

So Iran would be committing suicide to nuke Israel, even indirectly.

Didn't we learn anything from the Cold War? The Russians were never nearly so keen to nuke us or our allies as we sometimes feared. Fear of being nuked kept the world clear of using nukes this long, I see no reason why that fear wouldn't hold Iran in line.

Hell, India and Pakistan loathe each other, and both have nukes and have managed so far to avoid nuking each other. Ditto India and China who are hardly friends.

It may be appealing to think of Iran as frothing at the mouth to nuke Israel at any cost but frankly as a nation they have not behaved as anything but a cynical self interested state. They are no friends of Israel, to be sure, and would celebrate its demise, but that's not the same. I would celebrate North Korea's demise as a state, but would not advocate nuking it.

It's telling also that Bush evidently has no plans to locate a missile defence shield in Israel. If Iran is such a threat, why not put one of these (useless and expensive) systems there?

Wouldn't that be a better answer than starting a war?

Do you have a book tour lined up?

Any hope venues like Colbert or the Daily Show will have you on?

I'm awaiting my copy.

Where the government actually claimed he wasn't fit to stand trial, so his claims of abuse wouldn't be heard, which one wag dubbed it: "You can't believe him when he says we tortured him because he's crazy from all the things we did to him"

It really is the era of Kafka and Heller.

I respect Helen Thomas, and I'll grant that she may be misquoting herself, but ""Mr. President, why don't you respect the wall between church and state?" That's not an example of an honest, truth-seeking question, but of a loaded "gotcha" question that assumes what it's trying to investigate. She could have asked plenty of fairer and more useful questions about how the Faith-Based Initiatives office fails to square with the tradition of church/state separation. Thomas is usually tough and smart, but letting dumb questions like this slip out makes it awfully easy for right-wingers call her a nut.

How is it a "gotcha" question? Is President Bush respecting a wall between church and state? No. Why should the question not deal with that directly? It's only a "gotcha" if one believes there should be a wall between church and state. I'm most of us do want that wall, but it is fair to say Bush and Conservatives do not.

Should she have used the "some say you don't respect a wall" formulation?

And it doesn't matter what anyone says, it is always "awfully easy" for right wingers to call people names. They are attack dogs. It doesn't matter how careful you are. Look at how Coulter tried to turn Elizabeth Edwards request for civility into "you're telling me not to write books"

There is no point tip toeing around them. Call them out directly on their actions.

Thanks, Glenn, that really clears it up. So those guys in the shiny suits who used to walk around Brooklyn collecting "donations" for the local neighborhood watch were practicing diplomacy! I thought it was extortion.

New definition: Diplomacy is the difference between sticking a gun in somebody's face to get what you want and shooting them in the face to get what you want.

Pure genius.

I think you're being obtuse here. ANY negotiation between any two states has at least some element of the possibility of force. Particularly between a much smaller and a much larger one. Do you think the Soviet Union needed to mass tanks on another Warsaw pact state's borders when their ambassador "requested" something?

All the US is doing here is being a little more blunt about this kind of thing.

The comparison between this, and neighbourhood thugs is appealing, but ultimately not accurate: There is no global "police" to enforce order. There is no global state to regulate behaviour between the states, so the mere act of threatening another state implicitly to get your way is not necessarily tantamount to extortion. It depends on who is asking and what they are seeking.

The View and Family Guy

are your examples? That's hilarious. This nonsense that there should be no secrets is just becoming fanatical for you.

No, he also has Goldberg saying it explicitly. You get the idea of satire and mockery right? Goldberg is on the level with the view's dimmest bulb, Britney Spears, and a fictional moron portrayed in a cartoon. That is the level of serious right wing sandwich-eating-admiring thought.

Also, you seem way to interested in the masculinity issues of conservatives.

Yeah Glenn, this fixation you have with the perverse fixations of right wing pundits itself must indicate you are somehow sick. After "it takes one to know one" is a great debate point. All us normal people just disregard the perverse gender issues on display in the beltway media elite, and let them get on with the business of ruining the country.