Nancy Pelosi’s Gotta Go

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D (CA), just concluded a press conference, allegedly to disavow the assertion that she knew about “Enhanced Interrogation” techniques (i.e. Waterboarding) that were being performed on detainees.  In reality, what it boiled down to was a disjointed, sputtering, clusterfudge that created the very real notion that not only did she know but that she is a really, really bad liar.  Her mannerisms – shifty, rapid eye movements, nervously shifting her body weight, displaying inappropriate affect (i.e. smiling when confronted by a reporter about lying) are all things that we train TSA agents to spot when looking for “persons of interest” in an airport.  Their demeanor indicates they are concealing something and Speaker Pelosi looked about as nervous as one possibly can.

So what, you may ask, does that have to do with what she said?  So she looks nervous….what does that prove?  Well, nothing.  Unless, of course, you also include the comments she made during her conference.  Forget for a minute that even she lost track of what she was telling reporters (“I wasn’t briefed, I was briefed on the briefing” was one common assertion she made).  What was most telling was her inarticulate, ham-handed attempts to change the conversation in front of a room filled with journalists and television crews.  She kept trying to invoke former President Bush’s name, kept saying the election was won by Democrats and now President Obama is ending “torture”, all in a ridiculous dance to (not so cleverly) make us forget the one and only question: Did you know about waterboarding? At one point, a reporter tried to clarify the situation and state it as simply as I just did.  Speaker Pelosi had to refer to her prepared statement and re-read what she had said moments ago.  It was one of the few coherent, albeit obfuscatory,  moments during the questioning.  From there, it went downhill for the Speaker, with her handlers trying desperately to get her out of the room before she shot herself in the foot one more time.

Bottom line:  As the Speaker of the House of Representatives, she is neither a good speaker nor is she representative of most people in this country.  Clearly, she is out of her league, is confused on details pertaining to her own career and is trying to throw reporters off by bringing up irrelevant issues like WMD’s and former President Bush.  While I have little doubt that the truth will indeed surface (most likely it already has – I haven’t heard anything to contradict it from Speaker Pelosi or anyone else), the question is “will her machinations be enough for the public to demand her ouster”?  I’d like to think it will, but I know there is a significant minority out there that will believe anything the Democrats throw them if (a) they include something along the lines of “President Bush lied to me” and (b) they push some hot button words such as WMD’s, Iraq, Torture and Change.  Clearly, Speaker Pelosi tried all of those today, but the point still remains to be unproven: She knew about waterboarding and didn’t object.  The ball is still in her court, let’s see how the Democratic leadership handles it now.

Now we’ve stepped through the looking glass…

If recent headlines are any indication, Obama is poised to do an about-face on his stand against prosecuting Bush administration officials for so called “torture” of detainees.  In an apparent kow-tow to powerful interests in the Democratic party that want prosecutions of someone, anyone, President Obama signaled that he wouldn’t “get in the way” of Congress or the AG’s office if the decided to pursue criminal charges.

If this indeed happens, than I hold each and every Republican that voted for then Senator Obama responsible.  All of those that were fooled by his claims of being a moderate centrist, when all of the evidence was irrefutable and to the contrary.  All of those that chose to believe something other than the most obvious truth when they pulled that lever in their voting booth.  The true colors of this administration, of the interests and concerns that will truly drive the liberal, socialist agenda, will come out.  Obama, even if he is not in lock-step with their beliefs, will be powerless to stop their advance.

Now is the time for action.  Not mid-term elections. Not 2010.  Now.  By either of those dates, it might be too late to rebuild what has been destroyed.  Isn’t it enough already that this President’s first 100 days in office have been a colossal failure at a time when we needed a home run?  When one after one, his cabinet level appointments dropped out or were so ridiculed and marginalized, as to be ineffective?  When this President takes a “victory lap” overseas, then “apologizes” for Americans.  When he laughs with and shakes the hand of a brutal megalomaniac dictator in Chavez?  Then poses with a book Chavez hands him,  blaming America for all Latin Americas woes?  Isn’t that enough already?  Do we really need more? If he’s managed all of the above in his first hundred days, imagine how far down he can bring us in two hundred. Three hundred. One thousand. No, we need to take a stand here.

All of you that were on the fence during the election, that perhaps didn’t like issues John McCain supported, or his age, or his choice of running mate – whatever the issues were, you chose to give Obama and the Democrats a chance, to take them at face value and cast a vote for “hope” and “change”.  You heard the inspiring speeches that spoke in metaphor and you wanted to believe. Wanted to think that this world was not a dark, scary place that we needed to be protected from, that we were tired of worrying about.  If only someone would lead us out of the darkness back to the way things were before all of this turmoil.  Unfortunately, you got suckered.  Now, it’s time to wake up, take responsibility for the damage you’ve wrought and try to make it right.

You’ve heard before “write your Congressman” and never done it.  You’ve had issues you were passionate about, but never expressed your feelings to those that were elected to represent you.  Most people are like that.  Only the voices of an incredibly small minority are ever heard.  Now is the time to change that.  Find out who your reps are.  Support those that espouse the same beliefs as you do.  Form grass roots groups that oppose liberal, socialist agendas like gun control and an open door immigration policy for illegals.  Be vocal. Be persistent.  Don’t wait for someone else to do it, because quite frankly, there is no one else.  You are it.  We can’t wait another four years, maybe not even another four months.

Where Oh Where Have I Been?

So, it’s been a little while since my last post, which is odd because they seemed to be coming fast and furious before that.  Sometimes, however, I just seem to outpace myself and run ahead of what I’m really capable of doing…this was one of those times.  Frankly, the news of the day seems to be simply more of the same and others were doing a good (albeit boring) job of covering it already.  To sum up the past month: Big spending, no Republican support, more cabinet position fiascos and another great speech that said nothing.  I guess it gets a little disheartening when you feel like you are seeing the potential of Barak Obama (or, to put it more succinctly, the potential of the image of Barak Obama) whisked down the drain like so much dirty bath water.  I knew it would (probably) happen, I knew that no one could possibly live up to the expectations of the starry eyed, foolish electorate….but still….I didn’t think it would take a few months for the patina to wear so thin. No, that surprised even me.  I knew it was a bad sign when I was talking to an Obama supporter and I had to be the voice of optimism.  Yikes.

I wish I could say that everything I thought was going to pass, isn’t.  I wish I could say that all of the hand wringing and worrying by moderates was for naught.  I wish that I could, tail between my legs, be working on my conciliatory post apologizing to all of the Obama faithful.  But I’m not and it doesn’t look like I will be any time soon.  And that’s the real pity here, isn’t it?  Barak Obama is an untested, inexperienced politician who’s getting schooled right now by the old guard on the right and the left.  The current Omnibus Spending Package (aka ’stimulus’) is the very worst fears of moderates and conservatives, rolled up into one big package.  Obama didn’t want a package this big, but the leaders of his party in the House and Senate did.  Right wing conservatives decried President Bush for his ‘reckless’ and ‘wanton’ spending over the past few years, in the same vain attempt to do what Obama now wants us to buy into: Spending our way out of a recession.  This budget is triple President Bush’s.  Double yikes.

Only time will tell if the Democrat’s plan (and that’s entirely what it is, with a few notable exceptions like the soon to be former Governor of the State of Florida) will succeed.  My guess, however, is that whether or not the economy improves or worsens will really rely on events out of our direct control….much like global warming, I’m sure we have a hand in it, but the vast majority of control lies outside of our ability to do much about it.

Get ready to pay more….Obama’s newest tax….

So, in his first week in office, Obama signaled a hard shift away from the previous administration’s “protect Americans at all costs” policy, back towards a twentieth century mindset of the Geneva Convention. That was bad enough, although if you are willing to trade American lives for popularity in leftist countries, as Obama is, you should be elated.

Now comes the latest dagger from the new administration: Not only is the U.S. auto industry on rapidly melting ice, but Obama has picked the very worst possible point to tell automakers that he will allow individual states to increase their demands for pollution control.  Of course, California is leading the way (because all of their draconian measures have worked so well so far) along with thirteen other states.  Living in a state that does not belong to one of the thirteen, as well as does not currently have any sort of emissions or safety testing, I can understand implementing some sort of emissions standards on older cars.  However, to change to nationwide hodge-podge of standards will prove to be (a) costly and (b) unworkable, not to mention quite possibly unattainable, depending on the measures used.

Bottom line: If you live in one of those thirteen states, expect to pay more for your next car.  Expect to pay more for your curent car if it doesn’t meet newer standards.  Next up: a “sin” tax for those of you driving really old, really out of date vehicles.  Let’s face it – one 2009 vehicle probably has the carbon footprint of ten or twenty 1990 era vehicles. If your real goal is to reduce emissions, then the strategy ought to be to reduce the number of those vehicles on the road by “encouraging” you to buy a newer vehicle by hammering you at registration time and/or implementing a “smog tax” if your vehicle does not meet newer standards.  Hey, if they can get you to ditch your old junker and buy a newer car, they’ve both helped the environment and stimulated the economy!  Except, of course, you now have a car payment that you didn’t before and paid more for that new vehicle than you would have before.  Ooops.  Looked good on paper, though, didn’t it?

Interestingly enough, this is the exact same strategy they’re trying to use to ban guns.  Taxing the bullets out of existence and requiring gun manufacturers to implement safety standards that are impossible given the current state of technology.

So, to review, week one: Drastically reduced safety of American citizens through the anticipated closure of Guantanamo (without a plan, mind you) and banning “coercive” interrogation techniques. Now, raising the cost American’s will pay for their next automobile, while plunging a dagger into the heart of the U.S. automotice industry at the same time they are giving them bailout money.  I guess Chrysler may want to think again about asking for some of that money, now that they’re going to have to retool their facilities to meet the requirements of a patchwork of states. Brilliant.  Is Jimmy Carter writing his policy?  Is it 1977 all over again?

Why wasn’t Obama’s speech more inspiring? Just curious….

I’ve been reading reviews of President Obama’s inauguration speech, and they are almost all less than stellar.  Even in an otherwise gushing mainstream media, suffering from a bad case of Obama-rama, very little was said or discussed concerning the speech itself.  In fact, as Wall Street traders watched the speech, the markets took a nosedive, at least partly because of a lack of substantive content directed at the financial markets.  It was the single worst lost on an inauguration day since records began about 122 years ago.  So, I got to thinking “why, of all the speeches that he’s given, on a historic day when truly the world was tuned in, would he not give a rousing, direct, powerful speech?”  Curious, indeed.

First, we all know Obama is a silver tongued devil, as it were, so why would he pick this speech to be less inspiring than his campaign victory speech? Second, we just passed the baton from one of the least eloquent President’s we’ve had in recent memory.  Obama can read a grocery list and sound good….the word “Bushism” is indelibly etched into the American lexicon for a reason.  Obama has shown time and time again that he can stick to a message and deliver it powerfully as few men can – ability is not the problem.  The real problem, I began thinking, is content.

Think back to the campaign and the biggest complaint with Candidate-Obama was his lack of specifics, preferring to focus on the big-picture and slogans such as “Hope” and “Change”.  He never was really good when pinned down to the details, often flubbing facts and figures when pressed.  Could it be that our worst fear, that he really is just a stuffed suit, that while smart and glib, really doesn’t have anything new to add to debate, is true?  Could it be that the reason he never authored a bill in the Senate, that the reason no one (outside of Illinois) ever heard of him before now, that the reason there was nothing objectionable in his past, is that there really is no content there to begin with? Yikes.  When he was running in the primaries, I had flashbacks to “The Manchurian Candidate” every time I saw Obama.  He looked good, he said the right things, but there was simply something missing to convince me he was anything other  than a very good campaigner.  Could it be that his inauguration speech is the first indicator of that hollow ring?

I’ve said all along that the pieces will eventually fall into place, no matter what.  If President Obama is to be the greatest president we’ve ever known, he will be. If he’s a charlatan, we’ll know that too.  These are simply pieces of the puzzle and their possible interpretations, which could eventually go either way.  I now know that the conclusion will not take as long as we might have expected, only because of the precarious state of the world right now, between our own financial crisis, the instability in the middle-east and Indian/Pakistan, the financial problems in the EU, and various and sundry dictators, demagogues and a smattering of nuclear ambitions thrown in for good measure.  No, we’ll know a lot sooner than we might hope if we’ve elected a super-star or a super-nova.  Let’s hope it’s the former, rather than the latter.

Day One.

And so, it begins. The Presidency of Barak Obama, a Democrat leading a Congress of predominantly Democrats, will begin to tackle the most pressing issue of the day: The economy. As we noted yesterday, there will not be a ‘honeymoon’ period for this President, unlike many of his predecessors.  The world financial crisis (and I don’t think I am exaggerating here) is simply too great to allow any more time for reflection before measures are taken to stabilize precarious financial institutions.

The current economic condition of worldwide financial institutions, including Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, The Royal Bank of Scotland and others to name a few, has been likened to a falling elevator whose safety mechanism engages just moments before freefall….you now have the opportunity to get off, but not for long.  Act now, or say goodbye.  President Obama is aware of this, and I’m confident that he will put forth measures that will be quickly acted upon by the Congress. The real question is how much “pork” will be included in those measures and how Republicans (and conservative Democrats) will react to that padding.  There is a time and place for everything, and those in opposition will need to pick their battles or become marginalized, quickly.  There is no doubt that the deficit is going to balloon enormously over the next four years – regardless of who is in office – so is it really worth drawing a line in the sand over millions in pork barrel spending, when we are talking about hundreds of billions in total stimulus?  Probably not.  It would be nice, in a perfect world, but it’s not.

So, let’s all take a deep breath.  Let’s all look forward and not dwell on yesterday (or fifty years ago), but rather tomorrow and the day after that…one day at a time, moving forward in a positive manner.  We all know that at some point, the wheels will fall off and the partisan bickering will resume, but for now, let’s all chant together: “Yes, we can (pretend)! “  Ahhh, now that’s awe inspiring, isn’t it?

Obama inaugurated. 57 million yawn. Markets tank.

So, I hope it was worth it. 600 corporate jets. Triple the cost of the Bush inauguration in 2004. Delirious people who thought they’d make a pilgrimage to Mecca to fawn over the next coming of Christ himself.  All braving frigid conditions, horrendous crowds and draconian Secret Service agents that dreaded their task at hand.  And the culmination of it all?  A speech that was neither inspiring, nor rousing nor even insightful into how the new President would handle the financial crisis that now besets our nation.  Indeed, on that last point, the markets watched closely and at the end of the day, took a nosedive as President Obama offered little new either in word or direction.

What a shame, to have taken a point that may very well be the pinnacle of his career and waste it in such a vague and uninspiring way.  For a moment, with the world watching to take the lead from the new President, Obama instead chose to speak in the vague terms that beset his campaign for President.  Unfortunately, this was not a stump speech and the clock has started on what he says and how he says it.  Every word, every nuance, every move will be scrutinized, parsed, deciphered, recompiled and analyzed from every conceivable angle.  That analysis- rightly or wrongly – will determine world course over the next four years.  Obama cannot afford to be so self indulgent, as he was tonight, to waste such an opportunity by using vagaries and platitudes.  The markets, our allies and  our enemies, are not going to be satisfied with campaign rhetoric and puffery.  The markets today made President Obama pay for that by giving him an early sign that there will be no honeymoon for this administration: You promised a great deal, and you had better deliever or else.

So, tonight, we embark upon a new chapter in history. No, not because the country elected the first part African-American President…that goes without saying.  It’s a new chapter because we have elected the most liberal Democratic President in over thirty years, during an economic recession, during two wars and in a climate of economic and political turmoil.  This is indeed a brave new world and we all wish President Obama the very best, despite our protestations about his ability and his agenda.  As he goes, so go we all.

So, tomorrow, the 21st of January 2009 begins President Obama’s time on the clock, as it were.  There are no time-outs, no do-overs, no practice period.  This is step up to the plate and hit a home run or go home, time.  Anything less, and he will disappoint based on his own rhetoric and those of the millions that did watch him get elected today and didn’t get that sinking feeling in their stomachs that we were all in for a rude awakening very, very soon.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…Don’t Start Again!

Ugh.  So, the latest rumor working the circuit is that one of President Obama’s first official acts will be to eliminate the ‘controversial’  policy of allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces as long as they keep their sexual orientation to themselves, referred to as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  For some unknown reason, this has been a thorn in the side of gay rights groups since its adoption in the 1990’s, despite the fact that it has allowed gays to serve successfully in the military without repercussions, which is how it should be.  Now, it seems that President Obama is going to end the practice, although no one seems quite clear on what the replacement policy would be.

So, what purpose would this move serve?  Is there a problem in the military today that needs to be addressed by the rescission of this policy?  Are soldiers in uniform unhappy that their sexuality is to be kept under wraps while serving? Is it to allow same-sex partners to get military benefits? Is it to placate a vocal group of gay activists? Frankly, I’m not sure.  It seems rather odd, with all of the adversity he will immediately face, to open this can of worms when there is no pressing need to do so and when the drawbacks to his presidency far outweigh the benefits.  Aren’t there more pressing issues to deal with over the next four years?

Personally, I think you should keep your sexuality to yourself, no matter what your orientation. Period.  I don’t have any desire to know, especially when I have to sleep, eat, shower and live with you for years on end.  I’ve never served in the military, but I can imagine that a policy that allows freedom of sexual expression, whatever that is, can not be conducive to military life.  That was the beauty of “don’t ask, don’t tell”; The unit commanders had the ability to discipline anyone whose sexual exploits and mannerisms were a distraction to the unit, as it should be.  There simply is not a place in military life for behavior that does not lend itself to cohesiveness as a fighting force – straight or gay.  Period.

Steve Jobs No Longer Running Apple?

We’ve all had some time to digest the latest MacWorld, sans Steve Jobs, along with his admission that he is indeed still sick, albeit with a ‘hormonal imbalance’ instead of the dreaded cancer everyone postulated he was suffering from. Phil Schiller did a good (not great) job, but a lot of that criticism was focused on the message more than the messenger. No new MacMini, no iPhone ‘Nano”, no significant improvements in the iPhone OS, nothing except a new 17″ MacBook Pro and updates to iWork.  In all honesty, Phil didn’t have much to work with, so more attention was placed on his delivery rather than the content, which was unfair to him.  Believe me, the very first non-Jobs keynote and he’s only got leftovers to play with….not an easy task.  What was lost in translation, however, was not the content or the messenger, per se, but rather that overarching, cohesive view that Apple has been so on target with the past few years.  This time, it was missing, which leads me to wonder if Steve Jobs is really running Apple at all.

Looking back over the past few years with Apple, they’ve been on a breakneck pace of innovation and creation.  That kind of driven, maniacal pace requires an energetic visionary that demands perfection and has a cohesive vision of the “Apple Universe”, for lack of a better term.  The way the iPhone blended perfectly with iPods, with iTunes, with the Mac OS, with AppleTV….that was all the vision of a single man, presumably Jobs.  If you were to compare it with the Zune from Microsoft, you’ll see what I’m talking about.  There is no blending whatsoever between the device and anything.  It’s on an island, all by it’s lonesome, and is suffering a lonely fate as a result.

Clearly, Apple is stepping away from MacWorld for a couple of reasons, chief among them being that they realize they can’t be pressed to announce amazing things every January.  It’s an unrealistic timetable that causes them to push out information before they might otherwise want.  We saw this year what happens when they don’t announce amazing things – it’s a letdown.  Jobs, however, is unique among computer-guys…he’s also a showman that loves to get on the big stage and make a grand entrance.  He understands the power of marketing in getting his device into the hands of the faithful and getting them to pay a premium along the way.  This year, not so much, which is why the 17″ MacBook Pro is such a bitter pill to swallow for so many people, despite the fact that it’s the exact same price as the one it replaces. It just seems like a $2800+ laptop is a bit ridiculous in Phil Schiller’s hands, while in Jobs’ he had a way of selling it, even if it was snake oil.

For the first time since Jobs came back to Apple, I had the old familiar feeling of how Apple was during the John Sculley years.  A company with a lot of good ideas but lacking in a single vision.  The fact that there was nothing, not even a hint, of a new direction that was in keeping with the worsening economy shows that Apple has been caught flat-footed by the recession and without the leadership of Jobs, is floundering to keep its head above water, hoping the tide will recede before they drown.  How is it possible that the one new piece of hardware you announce is NOT a revised MacMini or a Netbook type device? How is it that the device you DO announce is priced at $3000….about twice the price of comparable machines, spec-wise? How long can you continue to count on “professional” users and mindless lemmings to buy vastly overpriced devices in hard economic times?

Don’t get me wrong – I appreciate Apple products, and while I am firmly a Windows-guy, I use Apple products and can appreciate the quality and the design thoughtfulness.  I can also appreciate paying a premium for those devices, as other companies have charged in other arenas successfully. But, as the economy worsens, as the market shrinks, and as computers continue to be viewed as ubiquitous commodities, it becomes more necessary than ever for Apple to differentiate itself in more striking terms.  No longer is it sufficient to say “our laptops are pretty and well built”.  The same can be said of Sony, of Dell, of countless others that charge a premium, but still costs hundreds less than Apple.  If you want to maintain that cache, it has to be as big an advantage as the iPhone was over Windows Mobile when it was first announced.  A category redefining type of announcement.  Not a smudge proof glass screen and a new, slightly faster processor.

If my money were on Apple right now (it isn’t), I would pull up stakes and look for another place to stash my nest-egg until such time as I was convinced that (a) Jobs was still fully in control and his vision was still in effect or (b) there was a visionary replacement who is not named Phil Schiller.  No disrespect to Phil, but he ain’t no Steve Jobs.  One need only look at the wreck Sony Gaming has become, ever since ruling the world with the PS2.  The PS3 isn’t selling well because the price is too high, the company is losing money on the device even though the price is high, developers are not building exclusive games for the device because the volume isn’t there, so people aren’t in a hurry to spend the extra money to get the device.  A vicious cycle that Apple is not immune to.

UPDATE: 01/14/09 @ 4:40pm

Neil Cavuto of Fox Business News is reporting that Apple has announced that Steve Jobs will step down from “Day to Day” operations of Apple.  Tim Cook of Apple will be taking over, at least for the interim. How’s that for timing?

Obama administration set to engage Iran in talks…here we go again

According to comments made by Secretary-of-State nominee Hillary Clinton during her Senate confirmation hearings yesterday, it appears likely that the incoming Obama administration is set to engage Iran in talks.  Saying she hopes to get Iran to be  “a constructive regional actor”, Senator Clinton appeared to strike a tone of possible mediation with Iran, in opposition to the Bush administrations policy of not dealing with states that do not meet certain criteria, including acknowledging Israels right to exist.  Only last year, the President of Iran doubted the existence of the Holocaust as well as homosexuals within his country.  Currently, homosexuals are put to death in Iran.

So, what do we think will happen with said policy of open talks with Iran?  Initially, they will be heralded by the world media as progressive and forward thinking, trying to engage Iran as a co-equal on the world stage.  The U.S. will give Ahmadinejad what he has wanted for many years, a platform from which to espouse his views of the new world order. A view which is Islam-centric, which does not include Israel, and which diminishes the role of the United States in the region.  This at a time when Iran is facing an economic slowdown and support for Ahmadinejad is wavering at home due to his poor economic planning and increased anti-western rhetoric, we are giving him a stage and a spotlight so that he can appear equal to the U.S.  In other words, exactly what we shouldn’t do.

Iran has managed to isolate itself among most moderate countries in the region since Ahmadinejad took office.  His clear pursuit of nuclear weapons, coupled with his oftentimes bizarre comments, have made him something of a odd-man out.  Much like Saddam Hussein, no one trusts him, but neither are they in a position to get rid of him.  Ahmadinejad has benefited from the fact we are engaged in two wars already, combined with our reluctance to allow Israel to take military actions against Iran.  Now, with an incoming administration that is perceived to be long on talk and short on action, Ahmadinejad will undoubtedly ramp up his timetable for acquiring nuclear weapons if he’s smart.  Diplomacy takes time. Lots of time.  When that avenue is finally exhausted, and more severe actions are necessary, what will be our course of action when Iran announces they have functional, nuclear weapons?  Will we even have an option available that doesn’t risk the very existence of Israel in the region or of killing hundred of thousands in the process?

There is a reason that the Art of War and the Art of Diplomacy are intertwined.  Like warfare, diplomacy is better when you are able to negotiate from a position of strength.  The very reason the U.S. has not been attacked since 9/11 is that the Bush administration has demonstrated it’s commitment to using military power to punish would-be aggressors, and do so definitively.  Ahmadinejad, among others, knows this.  He’s kept the rhetoric at a low-medium, biding his time till the Obama administration comes into office.  My guess is that he’ll welcome their advances, dance as long as he can, then when he’s in a superior position (U.S. forces mostly out of the region), he’ll notch up the rhetoric and go full bore with his nuclear program.  By that point, even the Israeli’s may be unable to effectively thwart the fruition of his plan.

Diplomacy is always a good option, don’t get me wrong.  “Speak softly and carry a big stick” is how you do it, though.  Talk about peace is wonderful, but it carries much more weight when you are massing armored divisions next door.  Ahmadinejad has nothing to gain through peaceful coexistence with Israel and the U.S. Under such a scenario, he is no more than he is now, a bit player among many.  If he can manage conflict with the U.S. and Israel and survive, then he’s a hero in the region and the face of anti-western Islamo-fascism.

Secretary of State Clinton ought to spend her time focusing on discussions with moderate leaders within Iran, that oppose Ahmadinejad.  It’s been known for some time that his popularity is waining, especially among the moderate middle class that has been hurt economically by his actions.  If she can manage to ignite support for the opposition within Iran, there is an excellent possibility of a more moderate leadership rising to the top and being negotiate with in good faith. However, to negotiate with Ahmadinejad directly would be a circus at best, would help solidify his position and would be a set-back for moderates within Iran.