Now that Obama is looking like the Dem nominee, the need for a strike NOW is obvious. McCain and even Hillary might be willing to bomb Iran, but Obama? Probably not. He wants to TALK to Iran. We must bomb now, before it is too late.

An obvious point, but one I wasn't thinking of.

More proof, if any is needed, that Neoconservatism is a criminal conspiracy.

One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen080602a.asp

A bit more about Iran:

I just read a few news alerts (Bush oughta just love my use of the Google), and not only does Ahmadinejad say that Iran will continue to seek nuclear power, but also supreme leader Khamanei. This got my attention, because on most occasions that I know of, Khamanei is happy to let the figurehead President of Iran do the talking, and get all the Westerners all riled up. This time, the mullahs are willing to step up and poke the West in the eye.

I truly hope Scott Ritter is wrong about this imminent US attack on Iran. But I don't think he is.

If we allow iran to develop its nuclear weapons, won't the nuclear winter that follows the inevitable nuclear exchange with Israel solve our global warming problems?

Shouldn't all the greenies support iran's efforts?

The Daily Nightly blog is no longer posting comments critical of the decision not to report the Pentagon Generals story. Yesterdays comments section had only three comments (though I made a submission), and they appeared to be from Brian's personal fan club, who love him and think he is so cute!

By the way, Glenn, we're going to have agree to disagree about Canada. I sincerely believe that, compared to the US, it is paradise up here, and if you lived here also, you might think the same. It's all good though.

Very little besides celebrate..

Go back and think about "shock and awe".. There were entire bars full of Americans cheering on the killing of people who had never done anything to us.

Same thing in Gulf War I..

We Americans don't even think of a large percentage of our own population as being human beings. Most of us will not give the slightest damn if we incinerate a million or ten million non-white foreigners who aren't even Christians.

I just about keeled over when I read that quotation:

"Ledeen argued that war "provides a real test of character" and "creates a pool of leaders for the nation."

That is straight out of the Nazi liteature about "War will make us strong." These guys are farther out there than we can imagine!

A "real test of character" for the Neocon crowd during the Vietnam years included claiming your cyst makes you unfit to serve (Rush Limbaugh), claiming you really want to be a priest (George Will), claiming that teaching business law is vital to the war effort (John Ashcroft) and literally pooping in your pants (Ted Nugent).

I am not sure what you are actually saying, but the post does raise a few questions.

1. In what way is Iran a less responsible neighbor than Israel? Which country has more of a history of invading its neighbors?

2. Why does Iran have any less right to have nuclear weapons than Israel?

3. Which side do you think would start the nuclear exchange? (That is, which government really thinks that obliterating itself is a good idea?)

4. Is it possible that US led invasions in the ME might cause countries there to seek better defense?

Can you clarify please.

If we allow iran to develop nuclear weapons, are we then responsible for any ensuing use of those weapons?

You make good points. Especially your last one about "the true character of the Bush administration".

Apropos of that statement, did you see the PBS program about George H.W. Bush, and what did you think it was all about. It struck me as a sanitizing and rationalizing (making rational) the Daddy Bush/Bush family mindset/mentality. That mentality that among other things pushes the idea of the 'compassionate conservative' (could there ever be such a thing, certainly not from a Bush) and then for exactly what purpose would/could they be attempting such a sanitizing.

It struck me that if they were sanitizing was it:

1. A last minute attempt, before they might lose control over the government and PBS to use that particular venue one more time time to give 'street creds' to such things as distancing the fathers image from that of the son, George W. Bush and his horrendous administration.

2.. A last minute attempt to do so before they attack Iran.

3. A last minute attempt to sanitize the Bush family name so as to clear the way for McCain to name Jeb Bush as his Veep and thus prepare the way for another of the Bush family to ascend to the pinnacle of American royalty ranks, and for when McCain has to resign the prez 'due to ill health' and hand the reigns of power over to Jeb Bush who will then perpetrate another Bush family tragedy onto the American people and the world.

4. A last minute attempt to clean up the Bush family name for a future attempt to put Jeb Bush into the presidency.

So what say you , or anyone else. Or, did I, in my skepticim miss the point of that program entirely?

I wondered about that sanitization, too, but if that was the aim, wouldn't they have picked a more widely-watched venue than PBS? Something on cable, or Fox, or MSNBC?

wrote: If we allow iran to develop nuclear weapons, are we then responsible for any ensuing use of those weapons?

A better question: if we allowed Israel to steal our nuclear capabilities, are we then responsible for any ensuing use of their weapons?

Ledeen is a strong admirer of Niccolò Machiavelli, whom he regards as one of the greatest political thinkers. In Ledeen's view, Machiavelli combined democratic idealism and the necessary political realism to secure and defend idealism in perfect measure.

If these neocons weren't sophists of the highest order who read literally *anything they want* into the classic texts of this culture, they'd remember that Machiavelli devotes almost an entire chapter in The Prince to reasons why you should never hire mercenaries like Blackwater: ...

Indeed. I agree 100%. I've read both The Prince, and some of Machiavelli's Discourses, and it never struck me as fair to categorize him as the evil forefather of totalitarian statecraft. The goal was to rule as well as possible on behalf of the state; to establish a model republic. Attacking Iraq (and eventually Iran?) benefits but a very small portion of American citizens (i.e. those directly profiting from conflict), and I suppose the state of Israel. A bit of an unhealthy alliance there. The link between the U.S. Military industrial complex & Israel has been pointed out for a long time, most notably by Chomsky.

If Machiavelli were around today, he'd scoff at the notion that these men are his intellectual descendants. Their cause is a complete perversion of the sort of statecraft he would've advocated.

Calling Strauss, Ledeen, et. al. "ideologues" always troubled me; ideology would imply some sort of "ideal." PROFIT from Military Conflict is such a limited and fleeting end in itself, it should never be considered an "ideal." What matters more is establishing a professional government that can operate to preserve it's citizens' civil rights, in a sustainable manner.

The mercenary mentality that pervades in their minds (that's really all it boils down to) is the most destructive and costly way to make a buck. It's not a long term solution.

The question they should therefore be pondering is... where is Israel going to get it's handouts when the USA collapses from the cost of footing the bill for the last 5-6 decades?