Wretchard says perhaps:

Time will tell whether the Six Party talks will succeed in denuclearizing the Korean peninsula or whether it will founder, as did the Agreed Framework before it, on some new difficulty. But two factors make the new agreement more robust than the 1994 agreement. First, the multilateral format means that any North Korean double-cross would alienate not only the United States, but South Korea, Japan, Russia and most importantly, Pyongyang’s patron China. North Korea has a lot more to lose by welshing on the Six Party Talks than it did on the Agreed Framework.

Secondly, because their fissile production line will effectively be dismantled — the Yongbon cooling will be demolished — North Korea’s remaining blackmail leverage consists of a mere handful of low-yield nuclear material. And with the United States positioned to watch Pakistan and Iran, the future of any clandestine program is in serious doubt.

Expect complaints from the Bush deranged in the peanut gallery, though.

This would be an interesting development:

As Father Dall’Oglio warns darkly, Muslims are in dialogue with a pope who evidently does not merely want to exchange pleasantries about coexistence, but to convert them. This no doubt will offend Muslim sensibilities, but Muslim leaders are well-advised to remain on good terms with Benedict XVI. Worse things await them. There are 100 million new Chinese Christians, and some of them speak of marching to Jerusalem – from the East.

As Spengler notes, the Muslims should be worried. That truly would be the first real challenge to them, if not since the founding of the religion, at least since the Crusades.

Whose side do you think that the left will take? How many guesses do you want?

[Evening update]

In comments, Carl Pham asks:

What’s to be appalled about in the Crusades, eh? Is this just regurgitating some politically-correct pap y’all were fed in public school?

I’m only appalled by the Crusades in the same sense that I’m appalled by the Middle Ages in general (I don’t actually recall learning about them in public school, which in itself, regardless of the learning content, is an interesting commentary about public school in the sixties and early seventies. It’s no doubt worse now, since it’s better to know nothing of the Crusades than to be mistaught them).

And in being appalled, I’m judging it by modern sensibilities. As I said, Islam was more (much more) appalling in its behavior.

Then. And more importantly (and even more), now.

But I’m sure I’ll get more Anonymous Morons in comments, whom I’ll take great pleasure in appropriately naming, unwittingly making my point about which side the leftists will take.

Also:

If you want to look for unpleasant proselytizing by Christian nations, take a look at South and Central American under the Spanish in the 1500s and 1600s. The Crusades do not quality. Islam is only pissed about them because they coincided with the high-water mark of Islam’s own effort to conquer the world.

Agreed. Latin American’s dismal state is a consequence of having been colonized by Spain (and it was a Christian Spain). It continues to be mired in a feudal culture, which has only transmogrified into a socialist/fascist one, as exemplified by “liberation theology.” Which is (unfortunately) not that far off from the “black liberation theology” of Senator Obama’s former church.

I’m sure that Ian McEwan will be arrested presently:

‘As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticises it is racist.

“This is logically absurd and morally unacceptable. Martin is not a racist.

‘And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on – we know it well.

It will be interesting to see if the authorities come after him for this bit of politically incorrect truth telling. He’s lucky he doesn’t live in the police state of Canada.

Speaking of which, Professor Reynolds has a pithy comment:

When the stormtroopers wear clown shoes instead of jackboots, it’s easy to forget that they’re still stormtroopers.

And so far, the circus up there continues.

If Israel attacks Iran, El Baradei will resign. Could we count on him to follow through, though?

Malicious and mendacious propaganda from Moveon.org? Say it ain’t so!

This reminds me of that idiotic interview that O’Reilly did with Michael Moore a few years ago, when Moore kept asking O’Reilly if he would send his child to Iraq. If O’Reilly had been on his toes, he would have pointed out that a) no “children” are sent to Iraq and b) that the adults who do so have signed up for the service voluntarily, and don’t need their parents permission, and are not “sent” by their parents, unless their parents happen to be their commanding officers. But this mindless trope of the left will never die.

[Afternoon update]

This is a pretty funny comment, over at Maguire’s place:

Don’t be misled by the name, lady: the 3rd Infantry Division is not made up of infants.

Hey, you can’t expect them to know about this stuff.

Malicious and mendacious propaganda from Moveon.org? Say it ain’t so!

This reminds me of that idiotic interview that O’Reilly did with Michael Moore a few years ago, when Moore kept asking O’Reilly if he would send his child to Iraq. If O’Reilly had been on his toes, he would have pointed out that a) no “children” are sent to Iraq and b) that the adults who do so have signed up for the service voluntarily, and don’t need their parents permission, and are not “sent” by their parents, unless their parents happen to be their commanding officers. But this mindless trope of the left will never die.

[Afternoon update]

This is a pretty funny comment, over at Maguire’s place:

Don’t be misled by the name, lady: the 3rd Infantry Division is not made up of infants.

Hey, you can’t expect them to know about this stuff.

What happened to the benchmarks?

In the wake of the September testimony, anti-war lawmakers and media outlets refused to let up on the benchmark mantra. For them, victory or defeat in Iraq hung on those 18 points. Party big shots like Harry Reid and Joe Biden publicly cited the failure to meet the benchmarks as evidence that Iraq was hopeless. House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn issued a statement saying: “Despite the clear evidence that the Iraqi government has failed to make the necessary political progress and deliver on 15 of 18 benchmarks outlined by the Bush administration, the president wants to establish a permanent presence or ‘enduring relationship’ in Iraq, continuing to sacrifice an unacceptable level of American blood and treasure.”

Well, if the benchmarks were all-important to Democrats in the fall of 2007, they have become meaningless to them in 2008. When is the last time you’ve heard a benchmark reckoning from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? The reason for the deafening silence on this matter is simple. The military and political progress in Iraq has proved so monumental that the majority of the benchmarks have now been met.

I agree with the author that Congress should come up with some benchmarks for itself.