Good. Though I have to wonder what will happen to the hecklers. Ahmadinejad, for his part, accused them of “oppression” … and then changed the subject to America-bashing. Heh. Typical.

Casey summarizes the Iraq Study Group report:

Their phraseology is all roses, but the strategy is pure pragmatism. Here’s my reading of it. If the sectarian groups won’t face up to the abyss so long as we’re in Iraq to hold them back from the precipice, then f*** it. Just push them off. Keep some boots and bullets in the country in case anything really bad starts to happen (IE, al-Qaeda gains traction). But otherwise, just stand back and let the place go off like the Wild West.

The language is far more diplomatic (of course), but this is the substance of the ISG’s recommendations.

The purely diplomatic component of the ISG report amounts to this: Tell all concerned countries that they haven’t been doing enough to help stabilize Iraq. Because of this, the Iraqis are all going into the sh**ter. We’re going to let it happen. You may have noticed that your own national fate is tied to that of Iraq. Hence you are about to go into the sh**ter as well. Have a nice day.

This is strategic bastardry at its finest. Reduce our committments, enlarge those of our regional allies (forcing them to ante up on our side of the conflict) and our enemies. Finally some intelligence has entered the Iraq debate.

Being Casey, he of course ends the post with an anarchically humorous conclusion, but you’ll have to click the link to read that. (Hint: C. Everett Koop is involved.)

Earlier this week, the Iraq Study Group released its final report and recommendations on the Iraq War, and for the Bush administration, the results weren’t pretty. The report pointed out something that most of us have known for a while now: the situation in Iraq is very bad, and contrary to what the White House would have us believe, it’s not improving and may in fact be getting worse.

The report, while not incredibly positive, does put forth a comprehensive plan that the group members believe is our best option at this point. While President Bush has suggested that he may follow some of the suggestions offered in the report, group chairman and former Secretary of State James Baker, speaking before Congress today, emphasized that the proposal was not meant to be taken in pieces but as a whole. Group co-chair and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana was also critical of Congress, saying that it had been “extraordinarily timid in its exercise of its constitutional responsibilities” regarding the war.

Two days before Tuesday’s election, Saddam Hussein will — presumably — be convicted and condemned to die on Sunday. Are we sure Karl Rove isn’t secretly running the Iraqi court? This is great for the GOP, as it will presumably turn the electorate’s attention to the one thing that everyone agrees is good about the Iraq war: the overthrow of a brutal tyrant.

If the Republicans end up winning, it may be that they’ll owe one election (2004) to Osama bin Laden and one (2006) to Saddam Hussein. Heh. And I suppose you could credit the 2002 victory to Mohammed Atta & co. That would leave 2000 as the only recent GOP victory not attributable to a terrorist or tyrant — unlike Theresa LePore is more tyrannical than I realize. :)

On the other hand… what if Saddam is acquitted?

“You’re breakin’ my balls, Hans Brix, you’re breakin’ my balls!”

Byron York’s account of a discussion with President Bush about Iraq is worth reading in its entirety.

UPDATE: Michael Barone gives his account of the same discussion, and also links to an MP3 of the whole thing. (It’s an hour long, and I haven’t listened to it.)

Now on Drudge:

What’s next? “Newsroom Sources Reveal NYT Friday Splash: ‘We’re All Going To Die!!!’ DEVELOPING…”

Rick Santorum says the war in Iraq has distracted the Eye of Sauron (or “Eye of Mordor,” as he put it), and that’s why we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. Forget the Flypaper Strategy; it’s the Mount Doom Strategy! (Hat tip: Scott F.)

Of course, following Santorum’s analogy to its logical conclusion, this means we — like the Armies of the West that marched hopelessly to the Black Gate in an effort to distract Sauron from Frodo and Sam’s movements — are going to be utterly defeated in Iraq… unless two hobbits, or some similarly unlikely heroes, can somehow miraculously save us from our doom at the last possible moment. It would also help if some eagles unexpectedly showed up to help us. Cuz otherwise, we’re pretty much all gonna die. Yeah, great analogy, senator. Heh.

P.S. Obvious Dem response: “Gandalf had an exit strategy: destroy the Ring, and the war is over. What is President Bush’s exit strategy?” Let the geek wars begin! (In the course of which, can we please try to find some way to use the phrase “Cheney the White”?)

P.P.S. Better yet, Cheney is Gollum, but instead of biting the Ring off the Ringbearer’s finger, he shoots him in the face!

Rumsfeld can be “Rummy the White.” Cast into the abyss by the Balrog Jimmy Carter, he comes back to life the Defense Department with even greater power…

P.P.P.S. Perhaps President Bush’s philosophy on the Iraq war is Gimli-esque: “Certainty of death… small chance of success… what are we waiting for?” (Actually, for a war-on-terror pessimist like me, that’s not an entirely implausible attitude toward the Bush Doctrine! I.e., “It’s probably not going to work, but it’s less unlikely to succeed than anything else that’s been suggested…”)

UPDATE: I just realized something… just as you can’t spell “BCS” without ‘SC, you can’t spell “Santorum” without “Sauron”! Heh.

According to a new study the war in Iraq has cost the lives of 655,000 Iraqis. Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator, but can we really say we’ve made the life of the average Iraqi better? We’ve failed to make ourselves safer and we’ve failed to improve the situation for the Iraqi people. How then do we continue to defend this choice to go to war?

Who said this?

North Korea’s nuke testing constitutes a failure of US policy. We can debate the details and the extenuating circumstances, but President Bush denounced the Axis of Evil five years ago and promised that he would do everything to keep its members from getting nukes. Well, North Korea just detonated one. Iran is well on its way to getting one. And Iraq, well, that’s not quite the bright spot we hoped it would be.

Kos? Atrios? Andrew Sullivan? The New York Times editorial board?

Nope. Jonah Goldberg, at National Review Online. Crazy, deranged, Bush-hating liberal! :)

(Sully did quote him, though, and he gets the hat tip.)

A leaked classified government report produced by the National Intelligence Council and is based on a consensus view of 16 government intelligence agencies concludes that the Iraq War has actually made the global terror situation worse.

At the same time former President Clinton has been fighting back against critics of his administrations handling of terrorism and bin Ladin specifically, and a group of retired military officers is being highly critical of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the war.

Is Bush merely lying through his teeth, or is he really “taken aback” by the “news” that his own administration allegedly threatened to bomb Pakistan “back to the Stone Age” in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?

Which would be worse? I think I’d actually prefer that he be lying. Because if he’s really that incompetent…

P.S. I guess there is a vastly preferable Option C: that Musharraf is lying (or the intelligence official who told him what Armitage supposedly said was lying).

Amid all the bluster about Hugo Chavez calling President Bush “the devil,” the real headline from this week’s U.N. festivities, says Andrew Sullivan, is what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said:

Ahmadinejad is calling upon God to bring about the coming of the Twelfth Imam (”the perfect human being promised to all by you”), who heralds the Apocalypse. He is also saying that he will “strive for his return.” It is the most terrifying statement any president of any nation has made to the U.N. We have a dictator on the brink of nukes, striving to accelerate the Apocalypse. Think of the Iranian regime as a nation-as-suicide-bomber. And anything serious we can do to prevent it may only make matters worse. No wonder Ahmadinejad smiles. Paradise beckons.

There is little reason for optimism when it comes to the impending conflict with Iran.

P.S. On the other hand, Glenn Reynolds and Daniel Drezner are “underwhelmed” by Ahmadinejad. Glenn sees him “as the latest manifestation of a long chain of anti-American losers: Nasser, Qaddafi, Noriega, Ortega, etc.” Drezner says, “Ahmadinejad too will pass.” Maybe… and maybe Glenn’s right that “some people” are “inflat[ing] him into more than he is.” But did Nasser, Qaddafi, Noriega or Ortega ever get nukes? Would they have “passed” so easily if they had? Moreover, did they ever subscribe to an apocalyptic religious cult? I think Chavez fits into the “long chain of anti-American losers,” but as for Ahmadinejad — I worry quite a bit more about him.

Is it just me, or is there something deeply, deeply ironic about Muslims firebombing churches “to protest the pope’s remarks…linking Islam and violence”?

I mean, seriously. Let’s ponder this for half a second. If you’re the sort of Muslim who thinks violence in the name of Islam is OK, then why would you be offended by the linkage of Islam and violence? And, on the other hand, if you’re the sort of Muslim who thinks violence in the name of Islam isn’t OK, then why are you firebombing churches? Can someone please explain this to me?

Anyway, Casey has (as per usual) a thoughtful post on the subject.

UPDATE: Now they’re killing nuns.

Casey has fishies!

He also has another interesting post about Iran. Excerpt:

This is an era of burgeoning peril. Republicans compare it to 1938, viewing Ahmadinejad as Hitler and clamoring that he must not be appeased. I think it is more like 1923, when a young Hitler attempted to overthrow the Bavarian government. Al-Qaeda and the global jihadist movement are in their very earliest phases, much like the fascists were in the early 1920’s. They are still trying to consolidate control over their first few footholds in places like Palestine, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Their inspiration comes from the Quran, but also from the poverty of wealth and dignity that they all endure. Just as in the 1920’s, present conditions are ripe to support the evolution of a radical minority into a ruling totalitarian order. Not least among these conditions is the perceived humiliation that Muslims endure daily at the hands of our own forces and those of our Israeli ally.

Republicans seem to think that this is the time for action, and that inaction would be far more costly. I agree with this line of reasoning. We cannot sit back and allow the Middle East to spin out of control. To qualify this reasoning, I would submit only the following: should one fight fuel with fire?

Read the whole thing.

Speaking of Iran, Fark had a hilarious Photoshop contest yesterday, featuring lots of awesome photoshopped pictures of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. My favorite:

Heh.

Meanwhile, resident Trekkies will appreciate this one, not so much for the image as for the caption…

…”DARMOK AHMADINEJAD AT TENAGRA!!!!”

Much more here.