Nuclear Options, Imagined and Real

An interesting contrast in the application of terms to political and foreign policy problems today.

First, Bob Novak has a bit on the "nuclear option" in the Senate for making the Democrats follow the rules of the chamber and historical president in considering the Bush Administration's judicial appointees.

Second, we've got a real lack of nuclear options in Iran.

A tale of two problems, one simple to fix, one hard, yet which one of these is the world's greatest deliberative body in knots over?

Here's my two cents:

1. No more gentleman's filibusters. You want to filibuster, you get the floor and you talk around the clock. The Dems won't be doing much of these, since it cuts into press conference time.

2. If the Dems want to break Senate precedent on judicial appointees, the GOP should follow the Clinton precedent of recess appointments. Americans elected Mr. Bush, and feel he should get his appointees. This is a loser for Dems just the way it was for Gingrich. Shove it down their throats.

3. The Iran problem won't get better over time. Deal with Iran and Syria now, while we have troops in Iraq and a clear cassus belli. Iran will topple quickly due to internal unrest. The Europeans will be useless as always, but that just means fewer opportunities to practice their outrage over friendly fire incidents because their soldiers are too stupid to turn on their IFF (Identify Friend and Foe). Nuclear weapons are exactly what the mullahs need to prop up their crumbling regime. If Bush means what he says regarding the march of freedom, the next stop runs through Tehran.