Left I on the News

In Jerusalem, Nancy Pelosi, just like her party's two remaining Presidential contenders, gave explicit support to the Bush doctrine of launching unprovoked, illegal attacks on other countries:

While saying that a military option should not be taken off the table, and adding that an attack by Teheran on Israel certainly "cannot go unanswered," Pelosi said that a preemptive strike on Iran would have consequences that needed to be considered. Among the consequences she listed were the effect such an attack would have in rallying Iranians around their current leadership, what it would do to the price of oil, and the response of the rest of the Muslim world.

So, just as Barack Obama wasn't opposed to the invasion of Iraq on principle (of course, Clinton wasn't opposed to it at all), but only because it wasn't a "good idea," Pelosi espouses the idea that attacking Iran is just fine, and perfectly legal, but we shouldn't do it without "considering the consequences," including the price of oil (!). As with the old sexist joke about the women who wouldn't have sex with a stranger for a dollar but would for a million dollars, it's not a question of arguing about what she is, only about the price. Pelosi's talk about "consequences" actually echoes quite closely Obama's words on Iraq:

"I spoke out against what I called 'a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, 'an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.'"

And the "other side of the looking-glass" part of the post's title? Try this on for size:

"We owe you a great deal of gratitude," she said, "because in resisting weapons of mass destruction, Israel was not only looking after her own security interests but those of the rest of the world."

"Resisting" weapons of mass destruction? Israel is one of the world's major builders of nuclear weapons, and, outside of the United States, probably the most likely to actually use them.