Please hold my place, I will be right back.

Which Way To Run?

Finally the U.S is having a substantive debate on Iraq policy. For months, with the Republicans in power and the Bush Administration in denial, discussions of the crumbling situation in Iraq were dominated by conservatives who tried to brand any break from their slug-it-out policy as "cut and run."

Now we see a variety of proposals on the floor, all worthy of discussion. Sen. John McCain, hoping to burnish his credentials with the hawkish right wing, is eager to send more troops. So too is William Kristol, editor of the neoconservative publication Weekly Standard, a man who has his thumb print on the original Iraq invasion. (Editor's note: Kristol also has been a big supporter of supply-side economics, so it is clear he is not seeing too clearly.)

On the other hand, General John Abizaid has called the troop level in Iraq correct and is urging civilian leaders not to set a timetable for withdrawal. Also weighing into the morass is Henry Kissinger, who says negotiations with Syria and Iran must take place. Kissinger also is of the mind that a military victory is no longer possible - a statement that pulls the rug out from under the slug-it-out conservatives. (By the way, that includes Dick Cheney who is suddenly now pleading with the Saudis for help.)

On the other edge of the spectrum is Sen. Carl Levin, who wants to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. Giving him support is Sen. Joseph Biden suggesting that Iraq be divided into three semi-autonomous regions: Kurdish, Siite and Sunni. Each will share in the country's oil revenue.

It is finally time for the nation to have a meaningful discussion. So please, what are your views?

Please hold my spot I will be right back.

Open Letter To Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Congratulations on your new role as Speaker of the majority. It has a wonderful ring to it, majority, doesn't it?

Democrats have been fighting for a majority for a dozen years and winning control presents a wonderful opportunity for the party.

I closely followed the vote this week for Majority Whip with Rep. Murtha losing out to Rep. Hoyer. I'm sorry for you it played out the way it did.

But there is a wonderful lesson for the party in this confrontation. Democrats have distinct conservative and liberal wings and the two need to find a way to work together. If the party can craft moderate policies balancing the interests of both, it will stay in power in Washington for a long, long time. The American people will reward it for thoughtful, common sense.

Of course, the alternative is the kind of disfunction Maureen Dowd nicely encapsulated today when she quoted one Congress person quipping: "I just wish Mom and Dad would get along so I don't have to split my weekends."

I know you understand these dynamics and more. Thank you for your service to our country.

Please hold my spot, I'll be right back.

Learning The Hard Way: Majority Gets Whipped

Oregon's Democratic representatives were split on the morning of Thursday's vote. Rep. David Wu planned to support Pennsylvania Rep. Jack Murtha's bid for majority whip. Rep. Darlene Hooley favored Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer hadn't yet announced his decision, but wrote to his constituents that the vote would be "a test about our leadership and about the nature of our Democratic majority, and our ability to deal with difficult decisions." How right he was.

The new Democratic leadership in the House stumbled upon an important lesson - one it apparently needed to learn. Politics is compromise, and liberal and moderate Democrats are going to have to find a way to live together if they want to accomplish anything in Iraq or domestically.

Liberal Speaker Nancy Pelosi had picked Iraq-War opponent Murtha as her number two. But conservative Blue Dog Democrats rebelled in favor of the more moderate Hoyer. Many of the Blue Dogs had been shut out of leadership posts and they weren't happy.

Media commentators are going to make a big deal about the "big loss" for the Democrats, and how Murtha's now infamous description of the ethics bill as "crap" and his old ABSCAM troubles came to haunt him. All of this is probably true.

But the good news is its very early in the new Congress. The Democrats have the opportunity to find consensus before the big issues of immigration, budget and war arrive. Let's hope they are quick learners.

Please hold my place, I will be right back.

Snug For Sure, But Michael Moore Speaks For Democrats

Michael Moore is a lightning rod for conservative criticism. Whatever he says draws a heeping retort from Republicans who see him as standing for everything they oppose. But this week's statement - equal parts coy and serious vow - is a wonderful starting point for a needed debate between right and left.

For instance, here is how he starts off: We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

Wouldn't it be nice if Democrats REALLY live by this rule...and wouldn't it be remarkable if Republicans did too?

Here is point two: We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business.

I'm sure plenty of Republicans will take issue with this. But how can you? Think about it? Who are we to tell you how to live your lives?

Please hold me place, I will be right back.

Is Violence The Answer In Iran?

Three days ago, Benjamin Netanyahu, the conservative former prime minister of Israel, spoke to a small Silicon Valley audience and urged the U.S. to do whatever it takes to stop Iran's nuclear program, including taking military action if necessary.

I presumed he meant an air strike, since our troops are in Iraq and can't do two things at once. He also let it be known that Israel would never give up its right to act on its own.

But what, if anything, would violence accomplish in Iran? As it is, war doesn't seem to have worked any miracles in Iraq.

What Netanyahu failed to point out during his address is that Iran's nuclear program fills 16 separate facilities, many fortified with thick concrete walls to resist bombing and others buried deep in the earth to protect them in the event of a nuclear attack.

Some experts say that if nuclear weapons were used they would need to be larger than those dropped on Japan in World War II to inflict substantial damage on the program. The consequences would include radioactive fallout capable of killing untold numbers of innocent people.

But other consequences would follow as well. Gas prices would jump so high we would wish for the relief of last summer's elevated prices. On top of that, our already damaged reputation in the Middle East would tumble all the more, making it easier for Islamic extremists to recruit more terrorists.

No, violence doesn't seem to make much sense at all.

Hold my place, I'll be right back.

Netanyahu Says The Problem Is Iran, Not Iraq


Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t shy away from strong opinions. He believes unions and government spending constrain Israel’s prosperity. He nevertheless boasts the nation’s economy can double in size in 12 years.

When it comes to the political landscape of today’s Middle East, this former conservative prime minister doesn’t flinch before recommending military action to keep Islamic states from getting nuclear weapons.

What may surprise many is his claim that Iraq is not the top problem facing the region.

Iraq is the wrong issue, Netanyahu told a Silicon Valley crowd Sunday at an event sponsored by the angel investment group, Silicom Ventures. The real danger is Iran.

Sooner or later, the U.S. will leave Iraq. Besides, what happens in Iraq will matter little if Iran gets nuclear weapons, he says.

It is not the first time this well known hawk has suggested a military strike to derail Iran’s nuclear program. No one knows whether such a course of action would solve the problem.

But Netanyahu is convinced it is a problem that needs solving. “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany but with nuclear arms,” he said.

Netanyahu said he is convinced militant Islam has goals of conquest. "If Iran acquires nuclear weapons it will use them...first on us," Netanyahu says. But already its missles can reach European cities, he claims. In 10 to 15 years, it will have missles to reach the East Coast of the U.S.

How urgent is military action? “I’m suggesting any action that is appropriate for this task,” he says.

Iran's goal is to create 25 bombs a year, and it doesn't just hate the West because of Israel, it "hates Israel because of the West," he adds.