pnac'ers are still spouting blood-thirsty nonsense

* kathleen has a plan: "Time to do that one percent theory back on them. " i like it!
A new constitutional amendment - "if there's a 1% chance that the potus and the veep will shred the constitution..."

* froomkin:

"Brookings Institution scholar Ivo Daalder writes on TPMCafe: "A consensus seems to be emerging, at least in the mainstream media, that Bush has given up on the unilateralism of his first term and is now firmly committed to a multilateralist foreign policy."

But, Daalder writes: "While there has been a shift in foreign policy during Bush's second term . . . it's not so much a shift from unilateralism to multilateralism as it is a shift from relying on the use of force to doing nothing."

* via froomkin:

""Although he is often portrayed as a bit of a bull in a china shop, White House spokesman Tony Snow credited Bush with 'a chess player's ability to think several moves ahead' in his dealings with foreign leaders.""

* Blinky's popularity numbers down five points to 36% in a month in the latest Fox poll

* robert kagan:

"Let's imagine, and this is purely hypothetical, that President Bush has already decided that he will not leave office in January 2009 without a satisfactory resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem. Let's imagine that he has already determined that if he cannot obtain Iran's agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons program voluntarily and verifiably, then he will order some form of military action to destroy as much of that program as possible before he leaves. Let's imagine that he has resolved not to end his two terms in office the way Bill Clinton ended his, by leaving every major international crisis -- from Iraq to Iran to North Korea to al-Qaeda -- for his successor.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Bush had made such a decision. What would he be doing right now? The answer is that he might be doing exactly what he is doing.
[]
The likely failure of diplomacy would not deter Bush from pursuing it, however. If and when it failed, he would be able to choose the military course, and no fair person could accuse him of not having tried to bring the world along to do what had to be done. At least he would know in his own mind that he had sincerely given diplomacy a chance. And when he ordered the strike on Iran, he would know that, whatever else could be said about him, he would not go down in history as the man who let the mullahs have the bomb."

the pnac'ers are still spouting blood-thirsty nonsense