John: Actually, no. Murtha may be mad, but he's still influential. He speaks for the Dems. At least all save Lieberman and Zell.
The Spectacle Blog
Note that the NYT uses Sanger to make a vaguely academic, determinedly confused, purposefully non-judgmental case for the status quo ante in Sunday NYT, "Suppose We Just Let Iran Have the Bomb."
Facts are inconvenient but required alongside the Sanger wandering-around in the groves of think tanks masquerading as anti-Bush Administration policy wonkhood.
1. The UN Charter is a large roadblock to the US doing anything with regard Iran. The UN Charter Chapter 7, article 42, provides for air, land, sea intervention in the event the UNSC votes to sanction a member state as a war-maker. Violation of the NPT by a signatory (Iran) decribes amply what is the UN's idea of war-making. It will take months and perhaps years to get the UNSC to such a series of votes and resolutions, but the process is well-advanced, and history says that once the talk starts, the permanent members get real antsy to get it over with either way.
1. Report that Bolton indicates the UNSC will send a "strong and determined signal" to Tehran with regard the nuke fuel program. No timetable. Recall that Bolton told me ten days ago that he is now the prince of multi-lateralism. Bolton goes where France and Britain and German lead, and he goes arm in arm with the reluctant Russians. The Chinese are inscrutably silent, fretting about their oil and gas supply line and all that cash they are slapping into Tehran's hands.
2. Report that Russian UN ambassador joked that unless the UNSC slowed down with its pell-mell pace to demand an IAEA progress report, the UNSC could get to Chapter 7 by June. (Chapter 7, Article 42, of the UN Charter is the guns and guns and guns option.)
3. Inside Iran, report that an Iranian general said that "bandits" or "Rebels" attacked vehicles in the southeast of the country and killed 22. This sounds like Baluchistan action, cross border units fighting Pakistan for independence, willing to gun down Iran also.
At dinner last night I met a young man who had served a stint as a nuclear engineer on the U.S.S. George Washington in the 1990s. He reported that the ship stopped in Dubai five times, and met no trouble from the natives. In fact, he even guided some on tours of the aircraft carrier. Imagine that: Arabs taking tours of the crown jewel of our naval battle groups. Someone call Duncan Hunter and Chuck Schumer and begin an investigation.
Wlady: Growl, grump, harrumph. Oh, ok. T.O. isn't a danger to national security, so I guess we can let him slide for a while. Let's hope he does more damage to the Cowboys than Brunnell does to the Redskins next year. Murtha isn't really insane, just liberal. Or can we tell the diff any more?
Jed: Now what Murtha said is criminal. But what crimes has Terrell Owens committed? Being obnoxious and insufferable and a lousy teammate can qualify as character flaws, but do they warrant lifetime suspension? There's no evidence he's on steroids, an abuser of women, a cocaine user, heroin dealer, or bank robber. So what's he really done, other than have a weird falling out with the Eagles and their nice quarterback? Sure made things easier for the Redskins last season!
BTW, I bet Bill Parcells will be tickled to know he could be the next Annie Sullivan.
At about 1120, Jack Murtha sent a message to Tehran. On Meet the Press, he said the president doesn't have a military option on Iran. Thanks, Jack, for making war more likely by telling the central terrorist nation that it has license to ignore diplomacy. Don't you understand that diplomacy unsupported by the threat of military force cannot possibly succeed? This man has lost his mind. Hello, Pennsylvania? Is anyone listening?
Wlady: If Parcells can do that with T.O., then the coach's biopic should be entitled, "The Miracle Worker." The problem I have is even giving Owens another chance. Yes, he sells tickets. But so would an ax murderer or a drug-dealing rapper. Where does commercial sports draw the line? And how many more T.O.'s will we see if he's rewarded with yet another shot? This man is getting more "last chances" than Saddam did.
I just got around to reading Patrick Hynes's Friday column. It's a bit problematic. Hynes writes:
David Brooks, writing in the New York Times, declared the moral values voter a "myth." Over at the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer said moral values voters were a "myth." In his book God's Politics, liberal evangelical activist Jim Wallis called moral values voters, you guessed it, a "myth."I haven't read Wallis's book, but that's a gross mischaracterization of what Brooks and Krauthammer wrote.
Recall the day after the election, exit polls found that "moral values" received 22%, a bare plurality, among answers to the question "Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?" This lead to much chatter about how the only thing that mattered in the election was gay marriage and the like. Brooks pointed out that this was nonsense, cooked up to coddle liberal egos (his column is no longer online for free, but it's still in the Lexis-Nexis database):