I wonder what Bush is going to think of this. Iran, Iraq, and Syria meeting to try and blunt the violence in Iraq.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has accepted the invitation and will fly to the Iranian capital Saturday, a close parliamentary associate said.

The Iranian diplomatic gambit appeared designed to upstage expected moves from Washington to include Syria and Iran in a wider regional effort to clamp off violence in Iraq, where more civilians have been killed in the first 20 days of November than in any other month since the AP began tallying the figures in April 2005.

I have to ask: how can the US possibly justify sudden diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria when you’ve got Bush saying things like he’d understand if Israel wanted to attack Iran?

Bush also said that if such an attack were to take place, he would understand it. According to European diplomats who later met with Rice, the secretary of state did not express the same willingness to show understanding for a possible Israeli strike against Iran.

Nonetheless, Rice did not discount the possibility that such an operation may take place.

This is why we have such a hard time gaining any credibility when it comes to our desire for peace. Our president is saying out of one side of his mouth that diplomacy and having a peaceful summit is important, then out of the other side saying that Iran is part of the Axis of Evil and it’s okay if Israel attacks.

Regardless, this is a crucial meeting. Iran and Syria have a huge role in the stability of the region (don’t forget that Saddam’s placement was intended to off-set Iran). I don’t really care how this meeting happens, I just want to see a resolution.

A head-scratcher to be sure. While I disagree with the draft for the most part, I have to admit that Rangel’s reason behind the proposition makes sense.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rangel said.

It’s a solid enough point. Voting for war and sending our troops over on a completely unnecessary mission without giving them equipment and armor is pretty easy when it’s someone else’s kids. When you know your son won’t be losing limbs because his truck had no armor, it’s a lot easier to vote for the war.

Not only that, but it’ll put republicans on the spot. I’ve said for the longest time that if they want anyone to believe that Iraq is the war for civilization itself the way Bush has claimed, then we should have a draft. It would solve our problem of not having enough troops immediately. Besides:

The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 — now about 16 million — from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.

Every major war has involved a draft. This would be the first one that doesn’t and Bush is proposing that it’s the most important war the world has ever known. How can you possibly make that claim and still oppose a draft?

This is a “put your money where your mouth is” situation for all of the war supporters out there. Support the war? Then cast away popularity and just do what’s right. All this is proving is that the war has been politicized severely in order to make it popular, more concerned with poll numbers than getting the job done.