Obama visited Israel today and made the logical and politically necessary speech of calling a nuclear-armed Iran a "grave threat".  He's right, of course, in the sense that any nuclear-armed country (including Israel and India) are a grave threat.  But still, this sounds a little too reminiscent of Bush's "grave and gathering" alliterative characterization of pre-shitstorm Iraq.

Obama, contrary to the shouting Fox commentators, has always been a centrist.  That's ok with me.  In part, because I think he's the good kind of centrist and not the Joe Lieberman, Tom Friedman neo-liberal kind of centrist.  But I was hoping for a steadier hand in Middle Eastern affairs.  Bush set a very high bar for non-involvement (read: complete capitulation) in Middle Eastern affairs.  So even if Obama manages to eat a falafal or two he'll have greater involvement than Bush.  Nevertheless, we can't have another four years of axis-of-evil nonsense.

We know that a nuclear-armed Iran is a dangerous thing.  But an Iran with nuclear power done in cooperation with French and Russian envoys is not scary at all.  The only logical goal is to bring Iran into the fold.  Help them grow their economy and show them the benefits of living in the 21st century.  The venue for Obama's speech today probably prevented him from saying anything concilliatory about Iran.  But, frankly, I would take silence over another parsed sentence which inevitably leads to more dead civilians.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke with Jim Lehrer on last night's News Hour. He reinforced much of what Obama has long been saying -- as well as what Obama said yesterday about the need to factor recommendations from military leaders into a larger strategic vision.

Admiral Mike Mullen repeatedly took pains to indicate that his military perspective is an expression of his role as a facilitator of President Bush's stated mission. "Right now I'm working for the current commander in chief."

Key points:

1) The situation in Afghanistan is "precarious and urgent."

2) We need three additional brigades there.

3) Our commitment in Iraq has not allowed us to put the necessary troops in Afghanistan.

4) The existing Bush mission treats Afghanistan as a lower priority than Iraq (a prioritizing that McCain so far has supported).

5) The job of military leaders is to focus on carrying out missions set by civilian leadership -- not to argue strategic priorities.

6) Mullen would have no trouble or hesitation executing a new mission by a new commander in chief.

As it is playing out it seems Johnny McGaffe cannot go more than a few days without sticking his foot in his mouth.  This time on the missile tests performed by the Iranian National Guard.

In one of his latest "Greatst Gaffes" the 71 year old Senator from Arizona tooted his own horn by claiming that he had voted to "condemn" the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization and then went on to slam Obama for refusing to vote.

"This is the same organization that I voted to condemn as a terrorist organization when an amendment was on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator Obama refused to vote."

Open mouth insert foot...Again!  According to voting records Mr. McGaffe also missed the vote on the Kyl-Liebermann Act...Whoops..

The problem with the critique? McCain also missed that vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on September 26, 2007. Records show that Obama was in New Hampshire and McCain was in New York instead of being in the Senate chamber for the vote in question.

The gift that just keeps on giving....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/07/10/mccain-misfires-on-obama-attack/

I posted this diary on Daily Kos on Nov 11, 2006, and I am reposting it here today for its relevance to the recent missile tests in Iran, because it seems pertinent to understanding how serious politicians from Israel seem bent on avoiding a nuclear capable Iran. At the time, only a year and a half ago, it was pure propaganda, perhaps a vehicle of intimidation. Iran, however, never bought into it. Still, it shows the seriousness with which Israel views the problem of not being the only nuclear power in the Middle East.

The BBC and Israeli Propaganda is the actual subtitle of the article, Israel's Plan for a Military Strike on Iran, by JONATHAN COOK, a British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. It was published in CounterPunch on October 12, 2006 and is reproduced again by permission. At the time, there was an upsurge of interest in Iran's "threat," but the immediate circumstances are not now clear.

BO should avoid this trap of "more talks" by the MSM.  He should stop criticizing US government for Iranian intransigence.  

Was it the American (Bush's) fault that Iran test-fired some missiles today?  NO
Was it American (Bush's) fault that Iran refused to back down on its nuclear weapon program?  NO

Now that people in the know are sure about confrontation against Iran, it's time for BO to start highlighting Iranian intransigence like the nuclear program itself, harassment of US ships in the Gulf, today's missiles, and Iranian provocative rhetoric.

Instead of blaming Bush for everything wrong with Iran; the Mullahs bears the blame for Iranian situation.

I'm not a Bush apologist, but I don't want BO to become trapped into an Iranian apologist.  

The Mullahs of Iran hates America and everything we stands for; so enough with this "BLAME BUSH FOR IRANIAN MISTAKE" trap.

Make no mistake about it, US or Israel will take out Iranian Nuke facilities before this November.  Like I wrote in one of my prior diary:
Attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in right now inevitable and would happen between September 5 and October 15, 2008.  

What gives Bush the right to destabilize Iran by covert military operations?
by Brian Appleton(CASMII Columns)
Sunday, July 6, 2008

What a miserable little excuse for a human being Mr. Bush is. What gives him the right to attempt to destabilize the government of another country covertly with our tax payers money because they refuse to be his vassal state.

Amplifying a theme posted in my diary on DailyKos the other day, How to Reduce Gas Prices & Save US Economy: TRADE with Iran., Appleton wrote:

How people feel one way or another about Iran is one thing (personally, I don't see that making war with them over nuclear weapons which they don't really seem to have and are not likely to develop for years is such a good idea), but this article in the Khaleej Times made me grateful that I can blog about anything I damn well choose:

Khaleej Times Online  >> News >> MIDDLE EAST
Iran mulls death penalty for Internet crimes
(AFP)

2 July 2008

TEHERAN - Iran's parliament is set to debate a draft bill which could see the death penalty used for those deemed to promote corruption, prostitution and apostasy on the Internet, reports said on Wednesday.

MPs on Wednesday voted to discuss as a priority the draft bill which seeks to "toughen punishment for harming mental security in society," the ISNA news agency said.

The text lists a wide range of crimes such rape and armed robbery for which the death penalty is already applicable. The crime of apostasy (the act of leaving a religion, in this case Islam) is also already punishable by death.

However, the draft bill also includes "establishing weblogs and sites promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy", which is a new addition to crimes punishable by death.

Those convicted of these crimes "should be punished as "mohareb' (enemy of God) and "corrupt on the earth'," the text says.

Under Iranian law the standard punishments for these two crimes are "hanging, amputation of the right hand and then the left foot as well as exile."

The bill -- which is yet to be debated by lawmakers -- also stipulates that the punishment handed out in these cases "cannot be commuted, suspended or changed".

Internet is widely used in Iran despite restrictions on access and the blocking of thousands of websites with a sexual content or deemed as insulting religious sanctities and promoting political dissent.

Blogging is also very popular among cyber-savvy young Iranians, some openly discussing their private lives or criticising the system.

Human rights groups have accused Iran of making excessive use of the death penalty but Teheran insists it is an effective deterrent that is carried out only after an exhaustive judicial process.

The number of executions soared last year to 317 amid a campaign which the authorities said was aimed at improving security in society, and was sharply up on 2006 figures when Amnesty International recorded 177 executions.

All legislation in Iran has to be rubber-stamped by a conservative clerical watchdog before it is written into law. The Guardians Council vets bills to see if they are in line with the constitution and Islamic law.

The most I feel about these idiots is pity.

Under The LobsterScope