A couple of things about *nuclear options*. First off, only the commander-in-chief can authorize their use, not senators or committee chairmen. For there to be a realuse of a *nuclear option,* it'll have to come fromthe President, who, BTW, was long agoin the business of shooting down those who might attempt to bring a nuclear weapon our way-for real. Happily, he never had to do so.
But the only time real nukes have been employed, they were decisive after being used in multiples; it took the use of the first on Hiroshima on 06 August 1945 [What was that?!?!]AND the second on Nagasaki at 11:02 am on August 9th. [What?! AGAIN!?] THAT did it. Note that if necessary, a third atomic bomb was being prepared for delivery, which probably wouldn't have been available for use until August 20th or later, but which almost certainly would indeed have been used, had the Japanese not surrendered. The lesson here is that Bush needs not one *nuclear option*, but several.
And if he does have to use one or more, it needs to be on the scale of those war-ending devices that brought the Japs to their knees, not just a mere change in the niceties of congressional rules or procedures. It needs to be something that's the equivalent of thousands of enemy casualties, a ruined city, and with the certainty that there's more and worse to follow.
And if used, there can be no doubt that those it's used against are our enemy.
Archy, I was speaking figuratively about nuclear options, not literally. My point was if the Dems think Frist has the votes to use the "nuclear option" to do away with the filibuster of judicial nominees, the Dems may "go nuclear" by trying to start an impeachment and proceeding with the media blitz PK suggested in the post, all in an effort to try to derail a conservative appointment to the Supreme Court.