However, let's bear in mind that an imperfect Democrat president - Gore was the option in 2000 - would not have arrived with the preconceived idea of a trumped-up invasion of Iraq. Passive acquiescence after the fact is annoying but I think it's reasonable to say that the invasion of Iraq would not have happened if Bush had not been "elected". (And if Gore had received substantially more votes in Florida Bush would not have been able to manipulate the election after his popular vote loss.)

Barrack Obama may well be on the Democratic ticket in one way or the other. The Republican ticket will probably be made up of some combination of Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson, likely with some other, yet-to-be-revealed odious figure as well. I think it's clear which group is more likely to launch another disastrous war. Compare Obama's rhetoric to that of Giuliani.

I don't mean to excuse Obama's irritating decision to campaign on anti-Iranian jingoism. I suppose he thinks he needs to, in order to look "tough". Nor do I have the slightest problem with efforts to convince Democrat politicians to be more enlightened, especially where they can do so without alienating public opinion. But I am realistically noting what the choices will be.

He's trying to get elected President of the United States, he'll say a lot of things. "Leading Democrats" didn't get us into the situation we're in. Put the blame where it belongs and stop being an idiot.

Part of the blame for Iraq is precisely that "Leading Democrats" were so worried about how they'd look they allowed Bush to lead us into Iraq.

This "stop being an idiot" suggestion is brilliant, btw, though no doubt another one of those "do as I say, not as I do" ideas.

realistically noting what the choices will be- what looks like "realism" depends a a great deal on your current point of view

from what seems to me to be a "realistic" perspective, it's clear that the corporate media has already made it impossible for Kucinich to become president, but that although they are working very hard against Edwards their success in thwarting him is not yet certain

my hope - and who knows if it might come true ? -"the future's uncertain and the end is always near" [jim morrison]- is expressed on a campaign button I already have

Re-elect Gore 2008

I agree with harold, and reject the "sucktastic" label and the Barack-bashing -- Obama's been saying some good things about U.S. foreign policy lately. But you have succinctly described the hole that Democrats keep digging -- they repeat the "conventional wisdom" about how we all face certain doom at the hands of these irrational madmen, and then they suggest sitting down and talking to them.

I think Obama believes the "we need to sit down and talk to them" part more than the "certain doom" part, but he's setting himself up for failure when he repeats the neocon talking points about this year's boogeyman.

We cannot and must not excuse this kind of idiocy by saying that the Republicans or worse, or that it's politics as usual. If a Democrat has already fallen into the AIPAC, Neocon foreign policy agenda, it's time to cut off PERMANENTLY any support for this candidate.

The Democratic Party cannot survive another Clintonesque Presidency. If we are going to fight the Republicans, let's fight them - not agree with them then claim we are going to be weaker than they are.

Obama is a quick study, he learns fast. I can’t tell you how much I am looking forward to the next election where we shall have a choice between Bush, Bush, Bush and Bush. It would seem the main difference between the dem front runners and Bush is that they can do Bush better than Bush himself.

So what did Obama say that wasn't true?

I don't really get what is so "sucktastic" here. Are any of these assertions wrong? I have an open mind, and would like to hear what is factually wrong with Obama's assertions, rather than a generic comparison with previous mistakes by the party.

You may have a point, but your proof of it is...sucktastic.

Dave & Josh,

Let's start with this: what are "U.S. interests in the Middle East"?

no fear here...Oil of course

All abooooooooooard!

And...what specifically having to do with oil?

All abooooooooooard!

All abooooooooooard!

The idiocy lies in learning nothing from 2000 and the ensuing years. The obsession with moral purity on the left has caused me to bleed from my skull from bashing it against walls for far too long. Go ahead, write in Dennis Kucinich and watch the world burn...

Part of the blame for Iraq is precisely that "Leading Democrats" were so worried about how they'd look they allowed Bush to lead us into Iraq.

This "stop being an idiot" suggestion is brilliant, btw, though no doubt another one of those "do as I say, not as I do" ideas.

Not following you Jonathon...I just want to know what the point is here. Ahmadinejad isn't really the poster-boy for sanity, Iran is the primary source of backing for Shiite nations, groups, and militias in the region, and they are "making progress" in their pursuit of nuclear technology. Obama advocates strong diplomacy(not war). I fail to see the egregious statement here. We should probably look into talking with Iran.

Folks, we have two viable parties that may put a president in the White House of the USA. One is shit. The other, is radioactive toxic waste.

So, I don't care how shitty the shit looks. It's still better than radioactive toxic waste, 'kay?

I just want to know what the point is here.

That Iran is not a "strategic challenge" to any legitimate U.S. interests.

I fail to see the egregious statement here.

It's the same thing that was egregious about all the Democrats talking in 2002 about the terrifying threat that Iraq posed to the U.S.

Oil, and oil prices are, for better or worse, a strategic interest. Iraq not turning into a regional war is a strategic interest. Not having to deal with nuclear pollution from Iran "wiping Israel off of the Map" is a strategic interest. Avoiding a blood bath from our nation's mistake(Iraq) is a strategic interest.

The difference between 2002 and today is that there is no debate about Iran's nuclear program. Iran's outlook about Israel isn't in debate. Nothing Obama discussed is a myth like the WMD's were.

I suppose that we will just disagree here. Thank you for clarifying your point.

OUR INTERESTS IN IRAN are the same as ANY other square inch of planet Earth--- when one goes of aconquering one MUST conquer it all. Iran has SOMETHING someone here wants and is willing to kill as many AMERICANS as it takes to get it. JUST AS next week some other place (A part of Planet Earth) will show up in dire need of conquest. AS FAR AS IRAQ, Well WE all signed up for that one and very damn few complained, its a Majority Rules Society.

I agree with Jonathan, Barak is painting himself into a corner with this tough talk, and the crazies are going to call him on it. It'll be very hard to go from "Iran is a great threat" to "Hey, let's just talk with them" without someone accusing him of wimping out and demanding that he bomb them now, "Faster, Please".

Re-elect Gore 2008

I supported him in 2000. And took a lot of crap from people who thought that "the two parties are the same". (Here's a funny thing - there wouldn't have been an Iraq if Lieberman had been elected instead of Cheney. Lieberman. But the other guy was Cheney.)

I believe you mentioned Kucinich. I love him. One thing I love is the way he works within the Democrats. Maybe he doesn't get to jump from congressman (or nothing) to presidential candidate, but he doesn't spoil a congressional seat and give it to a wingnut either. Think about that.

It would seem the main difference between the dem front runners and Bush is that they can do Bush better than Bush himself.

Seriously, I don't want to get into a flame war, but peddling that "the Democrats are just as bad as Bush and Cheney" stuff in 2007 is just plain silly.

So, I don't care how shitty the shit looks. It's still better than radioactive toxic waste, 'kay?

Exactly. Shit can even make good fertilizer. I think that this may be a bit harsh, but yes, all choices are relative. It is better to change from toxic nuclear waste to shit than vice versa.

Josh - For the record, I don't agree with Obama's remarks. There is much that I dislike about the Iran of 2007, but I think his remarks are exaggerated. Iran has not invaded another country, has not yet joined North Korea, Israel, and Pakistan in the Nuclear Arms Club (hopefully never will - note that constantly threatening them may not be the best way to make them stop working on this). Name a single terrorist act against the US, or indeed any country, since 1980, that was directly and definitively done by an Iranian. A certain bearded politician who probably can't survive in office long after after Bush is gone has reasons to make crazy remarks about Israel, but Iran has no reason to attack Israel and no history of irrational invasions under any regime, including Khomeni. Arguably it's not the US's business what goes on between Iran and Israel, but if you think it is, there is very little chance of Iran attempting to "destroy" Israel if left alone, and a borderline sane president in Washington will reduce that chance even further.

I don't like Obama's jingoism on this issue, and I actually already said that and used that word. but I don't think he's overall "suckatonic" either, and if he's nominated, I'll vote for him, volunteer for him, and generally try to assure that I'm not looking at Giuliani/Romney in November 2008. I repeat, both Big Julie and Romney have made far more aggressive speeches, so unless you think Fred is a closet pacifist, the way to go is probably the Democrat.

The difference between 2002 and today is that there is no debate about Iran's nuclear program. Iran's outlook about Israel isn't in debate. Nothing Obama discussed is a myth like the WMD's were.

Josh, I'm sorry. This is completely insane. Of course there's debate about Iran's nuclear program. Of course there's debate about Iran's "outlook" about Israel. In fact, just phrasing it the way you do, as though Iran is a unitary organism, is crazy.

The situation is exactly the same as with Iraq. In both cases, there's a country that is an obstacle to our goal of running the mideast, which we want to do because of the power and wealth that doing so brings us. In both cases, the Bush administration plans to destroy that obstacle. In both cases, all the "reasons" given for our conflict with the country have nothing whatsoever to do with our real motivation. Bigtime Democrats blathering on and on about the challenge that these "reasons" present to America was highly counterproductive re Iraq, to say the least. The same will prove true with Iran.

Regarding the "Why Oh Why Are You Picking On the Poor Democrats" comments:

It's a reasonable assumption that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats. I'll even grant you that. However, the way to progress is NOT to give up the high ground and move onto the plains, its to stick to your guns: the Democrats are NOT where I want to be, and as long as they're not, I'll continue to say that, and excoriate them for not doing the right thing, just as I would with anyone else.

If you don't even countenance the discussion of the failings of the Democrats, how are we to remember and understand the ways in which things need to get better?

Spelling correction to Jonathan and some commenters: the correct name of the man who has no chance of winning my vote (due primarily to rhetoric such as that quoted above) is "Barack Obama."

"So what did Obama say that wasn't true?"

Well, just about everything:

1. You have to define 'US interests' before you can assert this 'greatest challenge'. Otherwise that is just bloviating.
2. Support for 'violent groups and sectarian politics in Iraq'? Join the party. Everybody else is, why not them, too?
3. 'fuels terror...' yadda yadda. Again so do others, Including Israel. In fact, a case can be made that Israel, in the thrall of its viscious right wingnut Lundnikocons, poses the greatest long term threat to peace and stability in the region.
4. 'continues to make progress on its nuclear program....' Well, not a lie. They are, but it is a legal program as per the NPT.
5. 'wiped off the map...' A mistranslation uttered by a lunatic who does not have his finger on the warmaking trigger in Tehran.

One last thing...It's their damnned oil, is it not?

I believe you mentioned Kucinich.  I love him.  One thing I love is the way he works within the Democrats.  Maybe he doesn't get to jump from congressman (or nothing) to presidential candidate, but he doesn't spoil a congressional seat and give it to a wingnut either.  Think about that.

I'm not sure that being the only sane guy on a team full of people who are completely opposed to your ideals is that laudable.  His heart may be in the right place, but what of his head?

In other words, how much impact has Dennis Kucinich had on the Democratic Party's platform lately?

The majority of leftists in this country are too afraid of change to dump the Democrats on their collective ass, and the Democrats (by and large) know it.  They can do whatever they want, and still get votes the next election by reminding people that the other side is marginally worse.

In other news, Ralph Nader single-handedly caused 9/11, global warming, and the popularity of American Idol.

Dayv, thanks for the spelling correction. Now made.

Jonathan

When you speak of "our real motivation"--is there just one? Is it new? How did we come by it?
I assume, Iraq is just expression of this "real motivation." If so, what larger/overall motivation is it part of?
I see Iraq as a symptom. As the jihad is a symptom of a disease infecting another culture and another part of the world.
Our country, our disease first, I suppose. I'd reverse the slogan. Fight here first so we don't have to fight over there.
But, ain't gonna happen.

In other news, Ralph Nader single-handedly caused 9/11, global warming, and the popularity of American Idol.

He played a very significant role in the first two, yes, and that is not a joke or an exaggeration but a fact.

He [Ralph Nader] played a very significant role in the first two [9/11 and global warming], yes, and that is not a joke or an exaggeration but a fact.

Do you need another refutation of the "spoiler" method of scapegoating, or should I just assume that you're immune to reason and move on?

Are any of these assertions wrong? I have an open mind, and would like to hear what is factually wrong with Obama's assertions...

Thanks, Josh, for so perfectly illustrating the liberal Democratic mindset, and for demonstrating why Dems get rolled again and again.

While you're debating the truth or falsity of Obama's statements, here on Planet Earth our crazy Vice President is pushing President End Times to launch an attack on Iran that will kill tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people.

Is Obama's statement useful to them? (it is) Will it make that attack more likely? (it will) These are the questions that we, as serious adults, should be asking. But instead, you'd like to consider Obama's statement in isolation, completely separate from the political context in which it occurs.

Others here have pointed out Obama's factual errors, but the larger problem is that you have no understanding of power and how it works, and how powerful (and evil) people get what they want, and so you - and your pal Obama - will continue to help them get what they want, again and again.

When you speak of "our real motivation"--is there just one? Is it new? How did we come by it?

I don't think there's evidence that it's anything more than the control of oil.

Jonathan,
I don't know how exactly you would refer to a unified nation acting as a national entity other than as such. There are parties and factions inside of Iran, as with almost any nation, but we deal with them according to how they behave as a unit. But that is all semantic really.

Iran has a nuclear program. They say they have it. We know they have it. I don't see the debate. The current regime has a well stated opinion of Israel. They have published as such. Again, I don't see the debate.

I don't believe that Barack Obama wishes to run the middle east. Stating the obvious, that Iran could be a problem in the future, and that we should keep diplomatic relations open, is a HUGE way from overrunning them and installing a puppet government.

Besides, if stating that you wish to have strong diplomacy with a potentially problem nation is the wrong thing to do, what do you wish for candidates to say? Just ignore the issue? I would like to know what the candidate I may potentially vote for has to say about an international issue.

Harold writes:
"Nor do I have the slightest problem with efforts to convince Democrat politicians to be more enlightened, especially where they can do so without alienating public opinion. But I am realistically noting what the choices will be."

is there any hard data about whether or not the general public believe that a "cost-free" war with Iran is achievable? I know there are polls saying the public are steadfastly against sending ground troops to Iran-- but I've seen no polling about what Americans believe the consequences of airstrikes against Iran might be.

More than that, I think the more the leading dems talk tough about Iran, the more they legitimize the scumbag-in-chief's new warplans-- and this is absolutely unforgivable.

If what Obama is saying is legit, I'm stoked about Iran. Posing a strategic challenge to U.S. interests in the Middle East, supporting an anti-U.S. agenda in Iraq, nukes to deter Israel... What's not to like?

Jonathan,

I think there's evidence that significant parts of the American political elite are blood-thirsty and mad for power. Sure, they'd be sad if all the oil fields burn, but I have to believe a significant proportion of them would still be rejoicing at being able to push American hegemony further. When you reduce the real motivation to oil, you are imputing to them a rationality that may not be there. I think they would be as glad with some other form of power, so long as they got their fix.

It is fairly disturbing to read that some, despite recent history, are ready to fall for the same hype that ended us in a protracted occupation and the deaths of an estimated one million people. How many have to die because politicians like Obama believe in America’s right to remake the world in a way that pleases us? Has it ever occurred to you that we have scared many countries into becoming an armed camp? Has it ever occurred to you that if Iran develops a nuclear bomb that it is meant as a defensive measure? Think about it.

Russia has resumed air patrols that were halted at the end of the cold war and the planes used are carrying nuclear weapons, China and Russia have recently participated in a joint military exercise, all because of America’s penchant for invading, murdering and then stealing a nation’s natural resources. Would it even cross your mind that we are the terrorists?

Jonathan is quite correct it is about the oil, it is about dominating the entire Middle-East so that we can control the oil. The Democrats have fully supported the war in Iraq, indeed have given Bush everything he has wanted and it is because that they share the same belief that America has the right to lord it over the entire planet so that we can glut its resources as we please.

SteveB...are you saying that Obama's statement is empowering his political enemy? I think that is the kind of rhetoric that we have been fighting against.

And just to add a little substance after the snark, I understand power. I understand that if the president really wanted to, he could attack Iran tomorrow under the 30 days allotted to the president. They are taking about another shock and awe without the ensuing occupation. Bush doesn't need Obama for that. He could pull it off, and be out of Iran before anyone could draft the impeachment papers.

I would venture to say that it you, Steve that needs to visit planet Earth. Specifically the US. Here, every four years, we elect a new president. Through 30 second sound bites, 1000 word articles, and some research for those of us devoted enough to look, we attempt to find out what these candidates believe. I for one think foreign policy is a rather important issue regarding who we elect for president. Obama is putting forth his view on Iran. I value that he has the balls to put it out there even if I don't agree.(Which I do in regard to Iran, don't in regard to Pakistan)

Any candidate not willing to state their views on foreign policy with specific examples WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. And for the sake of this nation, hopefully not any other rational person's. Choosing a candidate without the candidate explaining their positions is fanboy crap which I will not be a part of.

sen obama isn't writing op-eds and policy papers. he's sponsoring and promoting a new sanctions law, which if passed would be bush-cheney's job to execute. giving them any kind of responsibility, any new authority, instead of challenging their past actions and shutting down new ones until they're gone — it's a bad course of action.

Josh: Let's say in 50 years from now China is a fine democracy that also happens to be the world's sole superpower. Let's also say the Chinese have discovered that the best way to cook Moo Shu Pork is to drown it in Iowa corn oil. You know how seriously they take their Moo Shu Pork over there, so they declare free access to US corn a "vital interest of China."

Now, as you know, the US "supports violent groups and sectarian politics in Iraq, fuels terror and extremism across the Middle East and continues to make progress on its [ultimate-generation] nuclear program, etc." (This is background material so everyone is on the same page regarding the kind of strategic threat China is facing.)

Question: would it be OK for the Chinese to threaten the US with violence? Or would you advocate that the Chinese should first sit with the American before threatening to anihilate them?

So my question (as framed in the current debate) is this? Should China threaten to nuke us or should it sit with us first before it decides it may have to nuke us? For corn.

Which one is it?

This is all very amusing. Forgive me if I repeat points already made in the thread, but:

First off, if Al Gore was president it's not at all clear that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, being as he was the leading proponent of attacking Iraq during the Clinton Administration, and at least as late as February 2002 was telling the Council on Foreign Relations that "a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq."

As far as what Obama has said here,

1. Our "greatest strategic challenge" in the Middle East is the happy coincidence between mitigating global warming and getting our strategic armies out of the Middle East. Other possible "greatest strategic challenges" might be: Iraq; Israeli-Palestinian peace; Saudi Arabian anti-American terrorism. I don't see how Iran even ranks above pushing Mubarak to stop repressing democracy activists and opening up the public sphere for somebody besides the Muslim Brotehrhood.
2. "Iran supports violent groups and sectarian politics in Iraq": the only evidence available for this is that Iran is supporting the Iraqi government at the Iraqi government's request. That amounts to the same thing, really, but it's a little disengenuous to put it this way.
3. "fuels terror and extremism across the Middle East": "across the Middle East"? Southern Lebanon and the prison cell known as Gaza aren't really "across", so much as "dots on the edge of".
4. "continues to make progress on its nuclear program in defiance of the international community": This is a lot of false statements packed into one.
   1. The idea that Iran is making something like "progress" is a hard sell, a hundred or so centrifuges operating at 10% capacity or whatever isn't really progress from where they were three years ago.
   2. Iran failed to report otherwise perfectly legal activities in its civilian power program, there's nothing "defiant" about that, rather, the US has openly defied the NNPT by trying to prevent Iran from developing a civilian nuclear program.
   3. The IAEA modality plan expects to have all outstanding issues cleared up by Christmas because Iran continues to cooperate with them, so there's really nothing "continuing" about any "defiance" were there any.
5. "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that Israel must be 'wiped off the map.'": A common falsehood. The statement included no reference to either Israel or even a map, but to an "occupation regime over Jerusalem" being erased from "pages of time". Time, not place. Occupation, not Israel.

Is "Obama's statement empowering his political enemy?"

Uh. His statement is clearly re-stating the Bush administration's argument for attacking Iran. It's not so much empowering "his enemy" - since it's not at all clear why or how Obama would oppose attacking Iran, since he's kept that option on the table - as it is making "smart and principled diplomacy" impossible.

It should be added that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no actual authority over Iranian foreign policy, so quoting whatever he says regarding Iranian foreign policy is quite irrelevant to Iranian foreign policy.

If Obama wanted to score some points on his foreign policy credentials he might be better off demonstrating that he actually knows something about foreign places, rather than repeating the conventional beltway anti-wisdom ad nauseum.

SteveB...are you saying that Obama's statement is empowering his political enemy? I think that is the kind of rhetoric that we have been fighting against.

Well, I think buermann dealt with this (thanks!), but just to be absolutely clear, Obama is empowering George W. Bush and Dick Cheney at a time when both are planning an illegal attack on a country that has not attacked us. Yes, they might very well attack Iran without any rhetorical support from Sen. Obama. Does this excuse Obama, now that he has provided them with that support? I don't think so.

As for this:
Any candidate not willing to state their views on foreign policy with specific examples WILL NOT GET MY VOTE.

Good point. Let's all thank Sen. Obama for stating his views on foreign policy, so we can all see how closely his foreign policy follows that of our current President. As a card-carrying Green Party member, I would agee that this is a useful public service. The consequence of that clarification, however, is to increase the likelihood that thousands of innocent people will die. Sort of a bad thing, that.

I'd like MY Iran roasted whole, with a HINT of BBQ, and a dash of A1.

I'd ask for a side of honey with mine but we're suffering from a bit of a foul brood this season.

I couldn't let this go:

The current [Iranian] regime has a well stated opinion of Israel.

Well, the attitude towards Israel has been pretty much the same since the Ayatollahs took over, well before Ahmadinejad came into office, an office that has not much control over foreign policy. The attitude of the Israelis likewise has not changed much over the same period.

But let's turn this around. Israel has nukes. Pointed straight at Tehran. Not developing nukes. Has them. And the IDF was crazy enough to go on its excursion into Lebanon last year. The one major war of the Iranian mullahs (the actual controllers of Iranian foreign policy, not Ahmadinejad) was in response to an Iraqi invasion. Wouldn't moral equivalency mean that we need to worry about the "nuclear pollution" from an Israeli strike on Iran, a far more likely event (remember, the Israelis have nukes, the Iranians are developing nukes but do not have them right now)?

Do you see the insanity of this now?

Who is the Iranian puppet in Iraq? SCIRI.

Which of the two major Shia factions does the Coalition support? SCIRI.

Damn those crafty Iranians.

"fuels terror and extremism across the Middle East"

Hell-yeah, they did. They helped the US invade Afghanistan.

Re the nukes stuff - what I like is how the warniks will bitch about Iran being an oppressive theocracy, while at the same time finding the fact that the Supreme Ayatollah declared a fatwah against nuclear weapons so irrelevant as to be unworthy of mention.

He [Ralph Nader] played a very significant role in the first two [9/11 and global warming], yes, and that is not a joke or an exaggeration but a fact.

Do you need another refutation of the "spoiler" method of scapegoating, or should I just assume that you're immune to reason and move on?

You've yet to offer anything more convincing than the hilarious spectacle of a Naderite invoking "reason". Ralph Nader is an authoritarian Trotskyist who has far more in common with George W Bush than almost any Democrat.

"The difference between 2002 and today is that there is no debate about Iran's nuclear program. Iran's outlook about Israel isn't in debate. Nothing Obama discussed is a myth like the WMD's were."

Everywhere I look in America, I see stupid people. (Josh and Luke - you SCARE me, because your level of knowledge is so low and your ability to be brainwashed so high!)

> are you saying that Obama's statement is empowering his political enemy?

josh, have you considered that they are both playing for the same team? and i don't mean the american people, thank you.

it's a good cop/bad cop routine as far as i can tell. bush is the bad cop. obama is the good cop. but the police captain doesn't change.

that said, i would have preferred gore in 2000.

Like Hilary, like all of them, Obama is keeping the Lobby on-side. His statement could have been written by AIPAC. Perhaps it was.

Seems like many live in hope that this is all play-acting, to be abandoned upon election, as a newly caped Crusader Obama, free of the need to take 'irritating' Likudnik positions, turns on a dime to attack the neocons and put the Lobby in it's place before breakfast, prior to birching Big Oil after lunch and arranging to get all the troops out well before dinner.

I guess dreaming is all we have left....

Ultimately, what you Yanks gotta think about is this: these wars are going to be good for you. Not for the rest of the world, but you. The US is now a cancerous boil: even if the people are not, the entity as a whole is. Its need to consume outside a rapidly diminishing resource base is going to be the nature of the beast it will become in killing the rest of the world along with it. Isn't the feeling of living inside a cancerous boil just great? I mean few other people on earth have that experience...

All this talk about oil just brings to mind the fact that if American infrastructure is now falling apart, wait till you see what happens when the oil runs out...face it, all these invasions are like a giant on an IV drip kicking the shit out of midgets cos he knows the midgets got the stuff to put in the IV.

Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to U.S. interests in the Middle East in a generation.

Wow. We've now had 3 of those in the past 7 years. Was ever a national security state so blessed?

Bad, bad news.

If Obama really said those things, then he is an idiot!

there is no "formal" defense treaty between Israel and the USA. Israel has refused to sign it because if it did, then by US law it could only use the American military aid only for "defensive" purposes.

So as far Barack is concerned he is offering to protect an entity that refuses to be defended by US.

As for Iran being a threat to Israel I suppose the opposite question needs to be asked of the iranians.. is there any threat from Israel to Iran or from the USA to Iran?

I would say the answer to that is a big Yes.

So I am not sure what US interest is served by Barack taking on Iran? seems to me to be related to Oil and Israel only and AFAIK there is no obligation in any treaty or in the constitution to waste US taxpayer monies for these purposes.

If Barack is interested in protecting Israel then lets get them to formally accept a defense treaty from the USA.

Fact is the state of Israel is in violation of so many international laws and war crimes that I am surprised that an intelligent person like Barack is willing to give them our blood and treasure for free..

Can someone enlighten me on what his motivation is? and why I should believe his supporters?

Sam

The thread got rather long, but a few brief replies to points -

Regarding the "Why Oh Why Are You Picking On the Poor Democrats" comments:

This technique of communication is known as "creating a strawman" - opponents' points are distorted or oversimplified, and then the misrepresentations are dismissed.

Although you wished there were, there weren't any comments that contained this sentiment, nor anything close. I'm sure you're an honest person,you just saw what you wished you saw and resorted to a canned reply.

My posts were sharply critical of Barak Obama with regard to his comments on Iran but did imply that he is probably unlikely to start a war with Iran if president or vice president, that he may have some merits that argue against blanket condemnation for a few hackneyed campaign phrases, and that as the realistic opponent will be a far worse Republican, I will support the Democrat presidential candidate in 2008.

And no, it is by no means "because of compromising people like me" that this is the situation, it is because for now there are large numbers of people far more "conservative" than me in this country, for whatever reason, many of whom will consider voting for the Republican.

I'm not sure that being the only sane guy on a team full of people who are completely opposed to your ideals is that laudable. His heart may be in the right place, but what of his head?

I perceive the Democrat party as a spectrum, essentially a coalition created mainly by necessity with Kucinich and a number of other strong progessives at "my" end, and centrist conservatives (in the TRUE sense of the word) at the other end, but no wingnuts. I once lived in a "liberal" congressional district that was briefly represented by a wingnut because progressive candidates from two parties split the vote; the wingnut Republican was elected with about 38% of the popular vote. The Democrat won two years later, I think, but a wingnut can do a lot of damage in two years.

In other news, Ralph Nader single-handedly caused 9/11, global warming, and the popularity of American Idol.

Is this intended as a logical response to the undeniable fact that Nader facilitated the election of Bush over Gore?

I don't think he had anything to do with 9/11. Obviously, any fool can plainly see that, by facilitating the election of Bush instead of Gore, he dealt a major setback to efforts to deal with global warming. How ironic that you would use that example. American Idol is not of relevance to me.

I know there are polls saying the public are steadfastly against sending ground troops to Iran-- but I've seen no polling about what Americans believe the consequences of airstrikes against Iran might be.

How odd. I've only seen polls showing that a supermajority favor "diplomatic" over "military" solutions. Can you direct me to the one that says "by military we mean only ground troops, not bombing" and/or "we include massive bombing in diplomatic"?

Some people may be in a paradoxical situation. On one hand, they may may favor progressive policies, yet on the other hand their egos may benefit from a sense of superiority to "Americans" or "average Americans". This would lead them to feel paradoxical dismay or cognitive dissonance when polls showed that a majority of Americans support a progressive policy that they claim to support themselves. It might even lead them into an ego-defending attitude of "whatever can actually be achieved through popular democracy must not be good enough", and constant goal post moving and refusal to acknowledge real progress, or opportunities for real progress. This condition could be especially common in people who, while consciously progressive, have no personal connection to anyone who is vulnerable enough that issues like lack of health insurance, inadequate minimum wage, economic pressure to risk life and limb in the military, or cost of education impact directly upon them.

Of course I only conjecture that such a condition could exist.

If Obama really said those things, then he is an idiot!

Actually, isolated incidents of saying idiotic things does not mean he is an idiot. I don't defend these stupid and probably insincere comments, but it is obvious why he is making them.

''Can you direct me to the one that says...''

Plenty here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

So, Josh-who do YOU support?
to atheist--Why should we HAVE to choose between shit and radioactive waste? that's not much of a choice....almost as if......THIS ISN'T A DEMOCRACY ANYMORE!
gee, BOTH parties are now saying the same bullshit, almost as if (to quote Bill Hicks), "there's one guy holding up both puppets!"

a 2 party system is NOT WORKING! (bang head against wall, repeat mantra until it sinks in)

So, as long as we're "settling" for someone who doesn't follow PNAC policy, why not reconsider someone who says dubious things about gay people, may or may not be a racist (kinda like every other effing candidate-Obama included), but actually thinks we should, duhhhhhh, RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION??
yes, I'm plugging Ron Paul, but ONLY because he says things like "Get the hell out of Iraq TODAY", and "we need to repeal the Patriot Acts, Military Commissions Act, and conduct a REAL 9/11 investigation"

Who else is saying that? especially on the Left? anyone? anyone?
lemme know if any Dems grow nuts, wouldja?

buermann -

Thanks. I'm a frequent reader. The polls there in the past have shown what I said - super-majority support for "diplomacy" not "military action". Those polls appear to have been taken down.

They also show that Americans perceive Iran as a "threat" and an "enemy"; however, that's almost equally true of many other countries. This certainly shows that propaganda has been successful (although the 1979 hostage crisis is also a partial explanation, as is the domestic use of inflammatory rhetoric by some Iranian politicians, who do it for the same reason that Obama is doing it, in hopes of domestic political gain), and it explains exactly why Obama is using that particular brand of jingoism. Again, I am harshly critical of Ombama's specific choice here. My point has never been to defend his rhetoric in Iran; I have not made a single post that does so.

Maybe it means that he will invade Iran if elected, maybe it means that he will facilitate a Bush invasion of Iran in the near future, I bet "NO" on both of those, but time will tell, at least with respect to the latter. It may mean that Americans are dumb enough to want a disastrous war with Iran for no reason, but they could just dislike Iran without wanting that. There is much I dislike about Iran, for that matter.

My original point was merely that if Americans say they support "diplomacy" rather than "military solutions" they probably don't mean that they support bombing, and until evidence that directly addresses that point is produced, I stand by it.

"Meanwhile, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that Israel must be "wiped off the map." "
This is just gratuitously stupid. Who in his team let him form or persuaded him to adopt such an ignorant view? Yes, the press, the wingnuts and sundry other useful idiots keep repeating it. That doesn't make it true. Does no-one involved in drafting his speeches have a clue? It's not even good strategy. It's just conceding ground to the right, freeing them to pursue other lines of (no doubt spurious) attack and to pull the agenda further in their desired directions.

WRT "wiped off the map", he obviously does not have access to any effective translatiors and no staff that read blogs that have debunked that statement's accuracy.

Re: harold and his insipid "ooh! Ooh! strawman!" nonsense:

You might want to hold off on the "argumentum ad logical fallacy". That shit is funny when you're a sophomore in college, but after that it becomes sophomoric. Pay attention, I'm going to do some quoting.

"Folks, we have two viable parties that may put a president in the White House of the USA. One is shit. The other, is radioactive toxic waste.So, I don't care how shitty the shit looks. It's still better than radioactive toxic waste, 'kay?"

"Seriously, I don't want to get into a flame war, but peddling that "the Democrats are just as bad as Bush and Cheney" stuff in 2007 is just plain silly."

Serious enough for you? Stop feeling so guilty.

Also, let me add, since no one has bothered to clear the waters muddied by Josh:

Iran has a nuclear program: a civil nuclear power program. This is entirely legal and consistent with the NPT. It does not have a proven nuclear weapons program, has never claimed to, maintains it is not interested in developing one, and has never been found to have even the rudiments of one by the IAEA. It's always possible they're lying, but the situation is EXACTLY analogous to the buildup to the Iraq war, contrary to Josh's claim: that is, the US and others are claiming that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons in order to whip up war sentiment, though there is no proof of this at all.

Regardless of Obama's stance on how to deal with Iran, he is approving of this fiction (that Iran has a weapons program), and therefore contributing to the likelihood of a war.

Saurabh -

Your original post distorted and oversimplified the arguments of those who did not completely condemn Barack Obama. Thus, it represented a straw man argumentation.

If you want to dispute this, show some strong evidence that there were any posts that could be fairly said to express the sentiment "why is everyone picking on the poor Democrats?", ideally that there were any before you used that terminology.

I have no problem standing strongly by the quotes of mine that you bring up.

The reason I sort of care is that I have no problem, to put it mildly, with criticizing Democrat stances from a more progressive point of view. On the contrary, I support that activity.

John Caruso -

With regard to global warming, you are at best comparing past Democrat actions to present Bush actions. It's an unfair comparison. We have very strong evidence that Al Gore would have taken global warming more seriously than George W. Bush. A great deal has transpired since 2000.

One of the most offensive activities of the Bush administration has been its censoring and distorting of scientists; this did not happen to this kind of degree under Clinton, or at any other time in modern US history that I am aware of.

Ultimately, the suggestion that Clinton, let alone a hypothetical President Gore, was "worse on global warming", or any other environmental issue, than Bush and Cheney, is one that I profoundly disagree with, and is perhaps an insult to the many people who have attempted to stand up to the Bush administration on environmental issues, often at the expense of careers.

You seem to be fond of phrases like "undeniable facts" and "any fool can plainly see"; I'd suggest that you consider dropping the tautalogical thinking and opening your mind to other points of view.

If by "seem to be fond of" you mean "used once", then I suppose this is true. They were appropriate where I used them. Tautology does refer to that which is self-evidently true. I'm not sure what tautological thinking is; if it means recognizing the obvious, I'll continue.

This will be my last post on this thread. I'd just like to put the whole thing in context.

Obama made some stupid comments about Iran. Why did he do that? Probably someone told him "You're Black and your name sounds Muslim, so to appeal to some voters, you should 'act tough on bad Muslims' and it's always safe to beat up on Iran". He may half-believe it.

I don't like his rhetoric on Iran, nor do I agree with him on every single other issue, but if he's on the Democrat ticket, he'll represent something massively better than the Republican ticket, warts and all. That was my original point and that will be my final point.

saurabh said:

Iran has a nuclear program: a civil nuclear power program. This is entirely legal and consistent with the NPT. It does not have a proven nuclear weapons program, has never claimed to, maintains it is not interested in developing one, and has never been found to have even the rudiments of one by the IAEA.… the US and others are claiming that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons in order to whip up war sentiment, though there is no proof of this at all.

this description reminds me that bush-cheney are making the opposite claim about giving nuclear assistance to india: in that case, they say, helping with a civilian nuclear program is totally separate, now and forever, from helping with a military program.

if all the other stuff about their intentions about the bomb weren't enough, they import their transportation fuel. this is not the logistical decision of a warmongering country. you can't go to war on an empty tank.

oh heck, that … kids, don't leave out any slashes! ok, try again. ahem.

saurabh said:

Iran has a nuclear program: a civil nuclear power program. This is entirely legal and consistent with the NPT. It does not have a proven nuclear weapons program, has never claimed to, maintains it is not interested in developing one, and has never been found to have even the rudiments of one by the IAEA.… the US and others are claiming that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons in order to whip up war sentiment, though there is no proof of this at all.

this description reminds me that bush-cheney are making the opposite claim about giving nuclear assistance to india: in that case, they say, helping with a civilian nuclear program is totally separate, now and forever, from helping with a military program.

if all the other stuff about their intentions about the bomb weren't enough, they import their transportation fuel. this is not the logistical decision of a warmongering country. you can't go to war on an empty tank.

your post seems to miss the next paragraph in which Obama stated:

In response, the Bush administration's policy has been tough talk with little action and even fewer results. While conventional Washington thinking says we can only talk to people who agree with us, I believe that strong countries and strong Presidents shouldn't be afraid to talk directly to our adversaries to tell them where America stands. The Bush-Cheney diplomacy of not talking to Iran has not worked. As President, I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, including the power of tough, smart and principled diplomacy.

This all goes to the question of how to get the Democrats to be better. Some darn blogger recently wrote a very good discourse on how the Republican rank and file beat back the immigration bill that they disagreed with, even as some of their most prominent "leaders" supported it. They beat the hell out of their leaders, day and night, saying that they would withhold campaign contributions, run against them in primaries, and withhold their votes. It's a lot like what Jonathan writes in his next post, on the iron law of power.

Josh and Harold and most Democrats are acting like those idiotic guys so desperate to date a pretty girl that they refuse to stand up to her when she's a pain in the ass. They usually end up either rejected for a guy who's less openly intimidated or they wind up in an unequal relationship frightened ever to really be themselves. Quit it with your desperation for the White House. It's more important to be true to yourself than to win this year, or next year, or the year after. When you're true to yourself you change the world. When you shut up and hope for the best you get what you deserve.