Iran says no way...Why it is WWIII

(H/T: Northern Alliance Wannabe)

Can We Think About That...No Thanks
In case you have not heard the completely expected news:

Iranian state radio said Saturday that the government would reject a proposed U.N. resolution that would give it until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of international sanctions.

"Iranians will not accept unfair decisions, even in the framework of resolutions by the international bodies," the commentary on state-run radio said.

There has been no official comment to the draft resolution, but state radio often is thought to provide the Iranian government line.

There has been no official comment to the draft resolution, but state radio often is thought to provide the Iranian government line.

The resolution was formally circulated to the full 15-member U.N. Security Council late Friday and likely will be adopted next week.

"Ultimatum and deadline cannot be acceptable to us," the commentary said, accusing the United States and its allies of making what it called an illegal demand.

The commentary also said the draft might not be approved because of opposition by China.

Tehran said last week it would reply Aug. 22 to a Western incentive package, but the council decided to go ahead with a resolution and not wait for Iran's response.

The incentive package includes economic incentives and a provision for the United States to offer Iran some nuclear technology, lift some sanctions and join direct negotiations. The proposal also calls for Iran to impose a long-term moratorium on uranium enrichment — which can produce peaceful reactor fuel or fissile bomb material.

The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran maintains its program is purely peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.

Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel but has indicated it may temporarily suspend large-scale activities to ease tensions.

Had to do the whole article...sometimes the full story on FoxNews.com does not go into long term archives.

In case you didn't hear us yesterday (show is available through webcast) I explained why this whole Iranian consideration of the UN proposal was a delay tactic.

Short version in chronological bullet points:
* Iran enriching Uranium...making U-235. Takes about a year of spinning in centrifuge to make it weapons grade (80% pure).
* Israeli intelligence has been putting the estimated timeline for completion between May 2006 and October 2006.
* Iran claims enrichment is for needed power.
* In June Iran is offered enriched Uranium in exchange for them shutting down all enrichment facilities (estimated to be about 17 or 18 facilities). If the offer is not accepted there will be sanctions.

Consider how long sanctions would take to (a) be put in place and (b) have any effective impact.

* Iran says, "give us 'til the end of August to decide".
* Shortly after Iran's surrogate kidnaps Israeli soldiers and fighting begins.

Why? My belief is for a few reasons.
1) Create a distraction enough to take public attention away from Iran's development (completion soon?)
2) Tie up some of Israel’s military resources so Israel will be less able to effectively perform a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities
3) Have an event that will still be a higher priority in most people's minds when it is discovered that Iran's U-235 weapons grade enrichment is complete
4) Give the borderline Arab states a more solid justification for attacking Israel or at least standing on Iran's side firmly. As it is, Saudi Arabia is already swaying from the "Israel can defend itself" to the "Israel’s response is unhumanitarian"

That Iran is going to turn down an offer giving them everything they claimed they needed from nuclear enrichment is not surprising at all.

Why World War III is More than the GOP 2006 Campaign Slogan
Israeli intelligence is also indicating that once Iran has weapons grade U-235 and a delivery system (not difficult to buy, really) their first three targets will be simultaneous strikes on Israel, London and New York. Absolute collapse of the Western World's economic structure in more devastating fashion than 9/11.

What is Israel going to do? What are we going to do?

We will likely do nothing. We are immasculated by the war-protesting movement that effectively and falaciously blurred the line between "support our troops" and "against the war". While they are actually mutually exclusive the war-protesters have succeeded in making many people believe that it is possible to believe both. This strengthened the consensus of people who think the troops should come home from Iraq. Mind you, Iraq was never primarily about WMD, but was about Iran. That does not matter to the ideologues (party over principles on the Left)...they want a Bush defeat no matter the cost. The result is American sentiment leaning towards withdrawal from Iraq. That queasy stomach is also weakening support for being in Afghanistan (which, btw, borders Iran). The result is also the unwillingness of sitting politicians to take a strong stance for action against Iran.

That leaves Israel to act. There are 3 main scenarios from this.
1. ACTION AND SUCCESS
If they act (and succeed) in time by annihilating ALL of Iran's nuclear facilities they will have likely ended the immediate nuclear threat. But what will the response from Iran and the Arab world be? My belief is the attack on Iran will give them all the concrete justification to "unload in the face" of Israel. Then a good portion of the Western World and the few Arab states the do not attack Israel will be pressured into an actual armed response. We then will likely lead the charge with Canada and Australia, maybe even Japan. The UK will follow. Eventually I believe Russia will give the same neutrality for Iran that we gave the UK before WWI and WWII. Then Germany will jump in, I think on Israel's side. They are so aware and haunted by their history that they try to side on non-violence. At this point they will not be able to be on that side and, continuing to be in the shadow of judgement for the Holocaust, will side with Israel. France I believe will be the last to jump in...and I think their spineless nature will affect their decisions. They are a coin toss as to which side they would support. My money (though not a lot of it) is on them trying the road of appeasement once again...trying to satisfy their Muslim minority and side with Iran.

2. ACTION AND FAILURE
If Israel attempts to destroy all of the facilities and misses any or does not effectively damage/destroy any the response will be similar to above. Arab nations attack and sides will be taken. The difference is Iran will be able to turn the battle nuclear to some degree. That may affect which side and how strongly Germany & France join, but the important detail is: nuclear will be a factor. How soon into the fighting will nuclear weapons be deployed depends on the amount of damage, but it will be a question.

The problem is we will not know which of these scenarios is occurring until either Iran & co. are defeated or they do launch a nuclear missile.

3. INACTION
Inaction, sadly, is the most likely. As mention already we are hogtied by our anti-war movement. We are nearly as impotent as Europe has been. Israel's resources are distracted/divided right now making an effective strike unlikely, or at least unlikely to succeed. Getting the UN Security Council, the UN in whole, NATO, the EU or any consensus of nations to any action takes tooooooo long. That is a fact I'm certain the enemy is aware of. What happens then? Iran completes enrichment and fires their missiles. Do NOT fool yourself into thinking they are not willing to do so. Mutually Assured Destruction works if neither side wants to die. We fear death and our enemy looks for it.

They launch, and in their mind one of two things happens. (A) We launch back and we all die, they go to heaven, Zion and its allies are defeated, Muslims win, or (B) No equal response happens and they severely weaken, if not destroy, the West. Some of their brothers may die, but that is martyrdom at its finest!

They launch and (I hope) we would respond. Hopefully the yields they manage and yields we respond with are not high enough to destroy civilization (welcome back Cold War nightmares--remember The Day After). Then we simply have a war to be fought that has gone nuclear to start.

Peace and Palestinian Civilian Casualties
Certainly there may be a way for all of this to calm down without WWIII. I see it as a long shot...like trying to draw for an inside straight. I suppose the first step in that no-WWIII scenario is for Israel to cease fire. I don't see that happening as Israeli PM Olmert said so.

Israeli warplanes carried out strikes in southern Lebanon on Monday, hours after agreeing to temporarily halt air raids while investigating a bombing that killed at least 56 Lebanese civilians, mostly women and children seeking shelter. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there will be no cease-fire, adding that "Israel is continuing to fight."
...
Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Israel plans to "expand and strengthen" its attack on Hezbollah, diminishing hopes that the 48- hour airstrike halt could become a longer cease-fire.

The worldwide crying against Israel is mostly rooted in the Lebanese civilian casualties. According to Australia's Herald Sun there are photos showing Lebanon is fighting from civilian suburbs...using civilian dressed fighters.

THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon's battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia.

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.

The photographs, from the Christian area of Wadi Chahrour in the east of Beirut, were taken by a visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend.

The reality is if one side dresses as, fires from and hides amongst civilians then the other side is 100% justfied in targeting civilian locations. If the blame is to be laid at the targeter's feet then the targets must be dressed in military uniforms, firing/fighting in uniform and NOT hiding as/among civilians.

No discussion. Sorry, Lebanese innocents, but the people you allow to hide amongst you have deemed you to be worthy and necessary targets. Good luck.

Conclusion
I hope I am wrong. I hope this is not WWIII brewing (or underway). I REALLY hope Iran cannot go nuclear. I see these paths though as being the most likely given the actors participating and the evil that is driving Muslim nations.

And if we, the West, and we, the United States, can get through the Iranian danger we cannot rest. North Korea is the exact same situation...except Iranian's leaders are rational (wrong and evil, but rational). North Korea's leaders is insane which complicates things. And after that...China. BTW, notice that China has been sitting fairly silent on the sidelines, not using any of their resources on this?

Breastfeeding Cover Controversy

I feel pretty strongly about this. The pictures displayed in throughout this post are NOT generally offensive. And if they are, then, how do you like life in that Amish community of yours? I take that back...some are not offensive and the rest received little or no controversy. So this post should be deemed safe. And I'm sorry, there is not effective way to describe the hypocrisy in our society without the pictures.

# "I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine"
# "I immediately turned the magazine face down"
# "Gross"

What? Was there a stray Hustler in a public area?

# "'I shredded it,' said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. 'A breast is a breast — it's a sexual thing. He [her 13-year old son] didn't need to see that.'"

National Geographic?

# "I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see."

[sidenote] Any son or husband that "didn't want to see" a breast is either lying or is gay. Sorry, that is the state of man. Seeking to see them...that succumbing to nature, fighting against seeing them is controlling nature...but not wanting to see breasts is against the nature of males. That women does NOT understand man. However, most of us don't see a breast used for nursing as 'sexual'...so maybe THAT is what she meant.

# "'Men are very visual. When they see a woman's breast, they see a breast — regardless of what it's being used for."

What could they be talking about?

# "'Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob,' wrote Lauren, a mother of a 4-month-old."

Ah, they are talking about some breastfeeding picture. Salacious? Racy? A new fetish porn magazine?

BabyTalk? What is that?

It is a magazine targeted to new mothers. It is free. It is distributed exclusively through clinics. Mostly OB/GYN clinics.

Yes, there is a part of the boob being shown. Big deal. I think the picture is actually a cute baby picture...and find nothing sexual about it. And I am a boob guy!

What made me decide to write about this story is the hypocrisy of the outrage. Did we forget Jennifer Lopez at the 1999 Grammys?

Easily more flesh being shown there. Easily more breast flesh shown there. That was in open public, not in a targeted magazine in a clinic.

And while looking through IMDB for the green dress pictures I came across the next J Lo example. And doing show prep in the past Friday's edition of USA Today I was reminded of the Lil Kim example. None of them had much outrage and so they MUST be safe in society.

Which begs the questions: What is it about the baby picture above that makes is offensive and "gross" while the above displays were so fashionable that people went out trying to buy similar dresses? The HINT of the full breast?

Enter Lil' Kim. 1999 MTV Music Awards.

The outrage/discussion after THAT event was (1) the dress was simply a horrible dress (and not necessarily because it was 'exposing') and (2) that Diana Ross on stage grabbed and jiggled Lil' Kim's, er, exposure. No outrage about the breast being exposed...in public...on television.

Maybe because the nipple at least was covered. Maybe that is why the nipple is always covered on TV?

Hypocrisy Again...The nipple theory exposed as not valid:
This picture looks like a nice formal dress worn by Jennifer Lopez at the 2001 Oscars.

But it actually was not quite so "nice" if you think that the nipple-is-offensive theory is correct then brace yourself...

Nothing left to imagination in that 'nice formal dress'.

So, maybe it is simply the act of breastfeeding that is offensive. Maybe. Even the targeted audience of the first picture above was offended. Remember the story a while ago (July 2) about Victoria's Secret?

Saturday was a day of protest against Victoria's Secret as mothers gathered to nurse their babies in front of the sexy lingerie stores at malls across the US.

The women were expressing solidarity with two mothers who were told by Victoria's Secret staff to use bathrooms to breastfeed their infants in separate incidents in Wisconsin and Massachusetts.

In both cases, the mothers reportedly had asked to use dressing rooms but were turned down. Both refused the employees' alternative suggestions by asserting, in essence, that a bathroom was not a suitable place for anyone to eat.

Many of the protesting mothers expressed outrage that a company known for ads that celebrate the female form -- often revealing far more breast than the average nursing mother does -- would be insensitive to their natural purpose.

Victoria's Secret responded by saying it has a policy permitting women to nurse their babies in their stores. A company spokesperson apologized for the incidents and said that the employees had behaved inappropriately.

Although 38 states currently have laws on the books protecting nursing mothers from indecent exposure charges and validating their right to nurse in public, 12 do not. It is not uncommon for breastfeeding moms to be treated as though they are behaving immodestly, according to protestors.

Yeah, Victoria's Secret displays modesty...when it comes to breastFEEDING. This is the same company that has a lingerie fashion show on network television. There was, btw, outrage for that the first time. But nothing much after the subsequent ones which reportedly were more revealing.

Oh, and be careful. The link goes to Daily News Central...the Health Section. And has a sultry picture on it. Honestly which one is closer to the threshold of offensive? The first one in this post (which is surrounded in controversy) or the one on DNC:

Or this one on breastfeeding.com's article about the BabyTalk cover controversy

Now why is there this schitzophrenia? Great question. My theory is twofold.
First, the often offended (likely offended by ALL of these pictures) are mistaking prudishness for modesty.

The second part of the theory is that there are two very strong (but small) groups fighting for American societal mores control. On the one side is the aforementioned often-offended who would prefer full coverage all the time (even at the public swimming pool). On the other hand is the group that thinks the above pictures are far too tame. They would not have a problem with public nudity and public sex anywhere, anytime.

The missing part is common sense. J Lo & Lil' Kim should have been chastised for their appearal. (Honestly I can understand the differentiation between the MTV attire vs the Grammys and Oscars attire...cable vs network. I don't agree, but I understand it and leave it to a place where reasonable people can disagree.) Each of the above breastfeeding pictures are, well, innocuous. Would I have a problem with my nieces or nephews viewing those? Nope. Why? Because that is the natural part of life, no different from them eating.

There is a reason the United States has a sexual assault rate problem.

The United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 4 times higher than that of Germany, 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan.

While I was in Germany (my high school years) I discovered that toplessness was no big deal. Where men could be topless so too could women. Ads had no worries about breasts being exposed. And amazingly there was not a big deal. It was Americans who were doing the staring. Not the Germans and not the Americans who were there for any amount of time. Desentisization? Maybe to a degree. But also there is not a taboo the drives curiosity. There is not secrecy that creates an overreacting fascination.

Are you confused about the controversy? Good. You should be. There is no logic behind any of it.

Bring common sense into the picture and it can get much clearer.

********** UPDATE **********
You can comment on the blog...and you can comment on Race to the Right's new Discussion Board.

********** UPDATE **********
Welcome to the readers of Katie's Beer. I hope you enjoy your stay and feel the blog is worthy of your return.

Big Oil Profits...Congress to blame for prices

We talked about this on the show yesterday...in doing show prep I found out a few things that are, well, very interesting. I came to a few new conclusions on energy prices. First, you have to understand that I started this because of the news that Exxon had $10.4B in profits last quarter.

Big number...but think about how much petroleum products are sold each day. Gas for cars, metro buses, planes, truckers...vasoline, valvoline...you gearheads know better than me all the stuff in the cars. So the oil companies make money from economies of scale...large volumes of product. Does not yet mean they are gouging or to blame.

So, the rest of this is the short version of what I discovered. If you want to be upset about gas prices you need to focus on Congress.

Oil prices at the gas pump are driven largely by three things...in this order.
1) Futures prices. Price per barrel. It is not the current price, but a futures price. This, btw, is how Wall Street works. If you buy a futures contract for a barrel of xygzam at $75 and by the time you buy that barrel the price might actually be $90, and so you save $15 on cost of business. Why do prices fall slowly? If you buy that contract for $75 and in 6 months the actual price drops to $60 then you lost $15 on the cost of business. So, better to pay a little high on the futures than a little low. Since futures are driven by fear and everything in the Middle East sends the prices sky high. And it is hard to justify bidding on the low side.
2) Global demand. So much more demand globally is driving prices higher. Simple supply and demand. Nothing scandalous there.
3) Domestic supply problem. No new capacity to refine the crude into product means that even with new drilling the supply to the gas pump cannot increase. Lower supply raises prices until demand drops.

The Domestic supply problem is created by Congress and government. They have made it soooo incredibly difficult to build a refinery that one has not been built since Carter was elected. (Many sources available but I used today this one).

There are two effects to this...
a) Prices at the pump go up (again, lower supply raises prices until demand drop).
b) Provides a legitimate increase in profit margin for...REFINERS...not the oil compaines.

Now, how much of your money goes where?
Based on 2005 prices (and I am doing this from memory of yesterday's show) there was
** 19% of the price per gallon went to profits AND cost of refining. Profits includes the .10 per gallon going to the oil company and the profits of distributors, gas stations, refineries...everyone.
** 19% of the price per gallon went to federal and state taxes. This does not include county, city, agency or local taxes and does not includes sales taxes (which some states do).
** 53% of the price per gallon went to the actual cost of the petroleum...that actual purchase of the barrel (not the futures contracts), the cost of building upkeep, salaries, permits, etc.
** 9% of the price per gallone went to exploration.

Now, where is the oil company to blame in that process? Nowhere, if we are being honest about the issue.
Where is any company to blame? At worst the refineries, but they are simply following the supply/demand curve created by price controlling policies of the government (strike one against the gov't)
How does the government have any hand in the production of your gallon of gas? They don't. So them taking taxes from that is like the Mob taking "protection" money from business. There is no legitimate reason for them to be included and there is not a way to 'refuse' the payment. (strike two against the gov't)
Now Congressmen & Senators want investigations, fail to relax the restrictions on refining, want to have government involvement/regulation. (strike three against the gov't).

Pissed about the price of gas? Don't blame Big Oil. Blame every single incumbent on your ballot this November.

********** UPDATE **********
You can comment on the blog...or you can comment on Race to the Right's new Discussion Board.

Race to the Right Forum Opens

Check it out. The Race to the Right Discussion Board is now open.

The link is http://r2tr.racetotheright.com.

It is developing so suggestions are welcomed. I'm going to add a "Campaign" Section where discussions about the campaigns can take place.

Thank you to our new hosting which is this is all made possible. BTW, if you find pictures on this blog not working please let me know because that is a direct result of the hosting transfer.

Globe causing Global Warming

It seems the culprit to global warming may be...well...the Globe!

Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers to understanding historical global warming cycles and provide information on current climate changes, according to a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.

Really!?

But it is not "methane" that is the REAL danger. It is carbon monoxide, right?

Atmospheric methane is at least 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is the most abundant organic compound in the atmosphere, according to the study's authors, all from UC Santa Barbara.

Hmm, so it is not really the cow farts either, huh? Too bad, cuz then the Left could have blamed global warming on McDonalds and Burger King.

The conclusion of the report?

The authors explain that these results show that an important piece of the global climate puzzle may be explained by understanding bubble-plume processes during blowout events. The next important step is to measure the frequency and magnitude of these events. The UCSB seep group is working toward this goal through the development of a long-term, seep observatory in active seep areas.

This is going to throw yet another monkey wrench into the blame-SUV-blame-humankind crowd of the Global Warming theology.

The article is an interesting read so go read it.

********** UPDATE **********
From the "right-wing mn blog where they're using one misinterpreted paper as a basis for not buying global warming"...I bid a welcome to the readers of Pharyngula.

Please feel free to read the archives...I'm using much more than just one article to justify my position that man is not causing universal warming or (in the sliver that the Theologians of Global Warming wish to maintain the focus) global warming.

I assume most of you are new to this blog so I will state up front my rules of "engagement". I play by the same rules as the person I am responding to. If you are respectful so will I be.

Kennedy's TV ad

Mark Kennedy's new ad is viewable on his website.

Before looking you go look at it let me make a few comments about Kennedy and his ads of the past.

Some of the most powerful ads are the ones that make the candidate look like a real person. Given the batch of yokels in St Paul and Washington an ad that makes a candidate even LOOK like a real person is a trick.

Two of my three favorite television ads are of this nature. One was from Norm Coleman in 2002. I don't remember much about it specifically beyond a scene where he was sitting on the porch steps in front of a white house and a scene of a field of wheat blowing in a breeze.

The one that was not about the candidate as a person but about "issues" was Kennedy in 2002. He was walking across the screen from left to right. The scenes behind him were made to look like he was in them (people reacting to him, etc) though the scenes panned from right to left faster than he was walking across the screen. The result was it seemed he was walking across the screen from scene to scene while still being a part of the scenes that were flashing by.

The third was just added to my list. The whole "meet me, I'm a real person" thing usually comes off as phoney if the candidate actually is a real person. Despite my misgivings of personal direct interactions with Mark Kennedy over the past several years I can look at his ads objectively. The ad does feel genuine, has humor that does not seemed terribly forced and is a great example of the campaign "feel good" ad.

Good job to the production crew on that.

Updating the WW III sides

The running post showing which countries are on which side of the possible WW III needs to be updated.

It seems that Spain has chosen the dark side.

Israel's envoy to Spain said on Thursday the two countries' relations had been damaged after the Spanish prime minister accused Israel of using "abusive force" during an event at which he also wore a Palestinian scarf.

Spain's ability to use its influence to help defuse the growing Middle East conflict could suffer following the speech by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to a meeting of young Socialists on Wednesday, Ambassador Victor Harel said.
...
Zapatero, who took power in a surprise election victory following Islamist train bombings in Madrid in 2004 and immediately pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq, had told the young Socialists: "No one should defend themselves with abusive force which does not protect innocent human beings."

Really, no surprise as Spain is being "led" by the party of cowards at the moment.

At least the Jewish community there is able to call a spade a spade.

During the question-and-answer session at the breakfast, Mauricio Hatchwell, a member of Spain's small Jewish community, accused Zapatero of being antisemitic.

And of course, heaven forbid one calls it like they see it when dealing with a sitting politician.

[Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel] Moratinos reacted sternly, saying one could be a loyal ally of Israel and still criticize it without being antisemitic. He addressed Hatchwell personally and told him not to repeat such criticism of the government.

"Let this be the last time you publicly denounce and condemn and express yourself saying a Spanish government is antisemitic," Moratinos said.

He said he was not worried by the diplomatic effect of photographs in Spanish newspapers on Thursday of a grinning Zapatero wearing a black-and-white Palestinian scarf passed to him by a student at Wednesday's meeting.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that part...the Spanish PM was wearing Palestinian garb. That speaks volumes.

Big Bang Theory is a Failure

You keep hearing from the Left and from the media that "Bush lied" about WMD. "The reason to go to Iraq was a lie" and other such nonsense. "That was the only reason we went to Iraq"

Oh really? I have said it on the air for, well, since we went to Iraq that the reason for going in was to pinch Iran...pressure Iran. Iraq is the stepping stone, the staging point for Iran. THAT was reason #1. For those of us who know how to see the deeper meanings in the BS platitudes in political speeches we knew this since the Axis of Evil State of the Union speech.

WMD was ONLY to show why the other countries, who were too stupid to understand that Iran is the head of the snake, should otherwise care about Iraq.

It is nice to see the media is finally understanding it. It is nice to see that they are temporarily done with the WMD obsession. They call the Iran target plan "the Big Bang".

The most intellectually honest case for the war in Iraq was never about Saddam Hussein's alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. It was the Big Bang Theory.

Not to be confused with theories about the origins of the universe, the Middle East Big Bang idea was simple and seductive. Unlike other arguments for the war, it was based on some facts, though also on some wishful thinking. The point was that the Middle East was a mess. A nest of authoritarian regimes bred opposition movements rebelling against the conditions under which too many people lived and energized by a radical Islamist ideology. Some of them turned to terror. In this bog of failure, moderate Muslims were powerless. They were frequently jailed or killed.

The situation's hopelessness argued for a hard shove from the United States to create a new dynamic. Installing a democratic government in Iraq would force a new dawn. Newly empowered Muslim democrats would reform their societies, negotiate peace with Israel and get on with the business of building prosperous, middle-class societies.

Thank you E. J. Dionne Jr. for finally talking about the REAL need to go into Iraq.

Of course, they are only willing to print it now that they think it has failed.

It was a beautiful dream, and even when the administration was asserting things that turned out not to be true, it held the dream out there for all to contemplate.

Consider Vice President Cheney's address before the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 26, 2002, one of the earliest major public arguments the administration made for war. The lead of the news stories was Cheney's claim that there was "no doubt" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them. "The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action," Cheney declared.

I have to give props on that quote...it was actually a line by Tony Blair about responding to 9/11. "The dangers of inaction far outweigh the dangers of action" I believe was the original quote.

If Israelis and Palestinians were closer to peace, if Iraqi democracy showed signs of stability -- these might justify a war fought in part on the basis of false premises.

Uh, actually you simply have it wrong. Iraqi stability cannot be in 4 years or less. It will take...well, how long did it take for a complete withdrawal from Germany? And, frankly, the ruckus in the Middle East lately is Iran realizing the vise grips are squeezing and they are fighting back. So, is what is going on in Israel unfortunate? Yes. Unexpected? Not at all. Iran and its tentacles of terror are getting cornered and are trying to fight back.

They want to delay accepting the nuclear energy offer until the end of August. Why? I don't know, but I find it alarming that just after saying, "We'll decide in a few weeks if we will accept what we've publically been asking for" their terrorist surrogates kidnap Israeli soldiers AND the United States tells Israel, "you have only one week to do as much damage as possible and then you have to stop". The timelines being around August is becoming alarming in their seemingly intertwining of different events.

In the meantime you have Arab nations saying that Hezbollah was out of line. The divide has occurred and is going to tighten the vise around Iran's leadership.

So, did the Big Bang fail? Nope...it is getting messy but it seems to be moving forward. Slowly and steadily.

Distortion on stem cell bill...and a little help needed

The news is that President Bush probably will veto the stem cell legislation coming to his desk.

President Bush readied the first veto of his presidency to stop legislation to ease limits on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. The veto is expected as soon as the measure reaches his desk. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that was expected to happen about midday Wednesday, and that Bush would veto the measure as promised.

While both the GOP-run House and Senate defied Bush in passing the measure to expand federally funded embryonic stem research, supporters do not appear to have the two-thirds vote margin needed to override such a veto.

Now the way I have heard it being discussed is basically "Bush continues ban on stem cell research". This is grossly misstating the issue. And rarely do I hear the misstatement corrected.

Stem cell research is not banned. Stem cell research will not be banned with this veto.

ONLY federal funding of stem cell research is restricted. That is all.

Private companies are still allowed to do the research themselves on their own dime.

Now, what do YOU think of stem cell research and why? I'm not certain. Granted, I have heard that no embroynic stem cell research has yeilded anything. But there must be some hope if people are given the option of saving their newbornd cord blood after birth.

Socially, what is the REAL danger in allowing embroyonic stem cell research? I have never understood the logic behind the objection.

The way I see it, stem-cell research should be allowed no matter what, so long as abortion is allowed. To me the logic of banning the research while abortion is legal makes as much sense as outlawing the use of cadavers if the person died of anything beyond natural causes.

But Bush is exactly right...I do not want federal money going to any of it. Even if I agree with that it should be legal I do not want it federally funded.

And THAT is what the bill is REALLY about.

Downward ticking for GOP

When it comes to investing in futures options people don't put their money on the result they hope for but they put their money on the result that they believe will gain them money. That is the concept behind TradeSports and its record is incredible. Watch the prices for movement and you will learn a ton about the event you are watching.

Tim Pawlenty was trading at roughly a 70% chance of winning...until yesterday.

He dropped down to 55% chance. Granted there is little support or resistance (for you investors you understand that) on the bid/ask, but it is telling that the race is not necessarily as safe as it previously was.

Mark Kennedy is still hovering around the 40% chance of winning mark with very little movement, very little interest and very little volume from the investors.


The Senate remaining with the GOP is bouncing around close to the 80% mark.


Control of the House seems to be a little more shaky.

As you can see from the chart the chance of the House remaining with the GOP is bouncing around between 45% and 55%. Flip a coin and you have the same chances of calling it correctly.

Now, the message for the GOP nationally will be interesting to see develop. How does a party in power run on what they will do while running from what they could not get done?

We had the MOB Evil Council 2 on Race to the Right this past weekend and the question posed to the panel was, "What do the Democrats need to do to win this November?" The answer agreed on: Say Nothing. Say as little as possible. I agree because of the dilemma the GOP is in with their base (dissatisfaction) and with the moderates (distaste with Congress).

The answers better not be "spin"...better be easily perceived as honest and genuine or they will take a bath this year.