Obama Realizes Israel Doesn’t Like Iran

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

I don't think what he said is so obvious. Obviously, the Commentary folks would like you to think it is.

There are lots of negative consequences to an attack on Iran. Our economies would be shocked by another spike in oil prices. We can expect more terror attacks. The humanitarian disaster that could ensue might be enormous.

For an attack to be a forgone conclusion under those circumstances is frightening. It shows a serious lack of perspective on the part of Israel.

Messiah One?

Does it make you proud to recycle Rush Limbaugh's talking points?

I'll have you know I invented that particular phrase, George. If Rush is using it (which I wouldn't know since I've never listened to his show) then he stole it from me.

that particular phrase

I'm certain you know, Jazz, that this whole notion of Obama as messiah is a frequent trope in right-wing media outlets.

Don't you?

George:
They're just upset that their candidate isn't popular.

Or maybe they think there can be only one Messiah.
.
.
.
.
.
Ronald Reagan.

A serious question as someone who's worked in tactical aviation and participated in air strikes.

Loot at this map of the middle east.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/images/harita_b.jpeg

No, create a flight plan from Israel to Iran that either doesn't over fly Arab/Muslim countries.

McCain isn't my candidate either. I'm one of the Barr Boys, sorry. As to the messiah thing, obviously I'm aware that lots of people use it, including some of his most ardent supporters when chatting with me. I just find it amusing. Your mileage may vary.

Unless of course, the plan is to launch Israeli aircraft from US airfields in Iran.

That outta go over just swell with the Liberated!

OMG!!!

So instead of defending yourself on the grounds of originality, you're now saying everyone does it?

I find that amusing indeed.

But since your milage may vary, don't forget to see your retailer for details.

See what I have to deal with Jazz when I dont support with wholehearted swooning admiration Barak Obama.

Davebo, we have air fields in Iran?! How convenient.

George, it's the same as using: McSame, McFlop, or McBush but then you're just vicious and divisive. I haven't seen Jazz use them when talking about McCain, so his bias seems to show at times.

In other words, George, grow a thicker skin. Both sides will TALK about moving away from negative campaigning but that's as far as it goes.

Jazz, I wish you'd hold yourself to a higher standard as I like your commentary and enjoy reading your analysis of issues even if I don't totally agree with your conclusions.

(retracted)

DaveBo.

Unless of course, the plan is to launch Israeli aircraft from US airfields in Iran.

Even if America Invaded Iran and had airfields in Iran how are you going to get those Airplanes to Iran without still overflying airspace of the Muslim countries?

A serious question as someone who's worked in tactical aviation and participated in air strikes.

Please tell me you were not in planning??

Well, at least he learned something from this trip. [grin]

Actually, he's okay, not a total fluff-puffed sound-biter. Still, McCain's new ad is a good one, and it would have been splendid had he began running this ad before the foreign trip Obama made, long before. (It's too late now to have worked well.)

Obama is, after all, the American Idol candidate as well as some's Messiah.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idU...

Just for the record, I am not "defending myself" on the grounds that "everyone does it." It's also not offensive IMHO. If you think it is, sorry to say I'm not terribly sympathetic. There is an air of messianic quality about the campaign. I also enjoy the entire unicorn image that goes around with the whole "hope and change" thing, as I find it amusing and appropriate to poke fun at the overblown change hyperbole. I don't dislike Obama and will not be upset if he is the next president. I like his foreign policy better than Big Mac's, though I don't like his domestic policy as well as Mac's or Barr's. Barr won't be elected. I will have issues with either of the major party candidates if/when they take office. I also won't apologize, as I said, for making fun of the Messiah theme or the hope theme. They are not racist, sexisct, etc. and are poking fun at the message and campaign strategy of a candidate who has put himself forward to lead the free world. If you're offended by that, then you really have bought into the whole "we must not every speak ill of the chosen one" mind set. I'm not going to stop making fun of the words, deeds, or silly campaign slogans of a candidate simply because he or she may happen to be a minority, a woman, of a different religion, etc. Welcome to TMV. We slaughter sacred cows on a daily basis.

""I'm certain you know, Jazz, that this whole notion of Obama as messiah is a frequent trope in right-wing media outlets. "

That doesn't nullify the fact that it's a _fact_ that plenty of the rest of us see, too.

* * *

"Even if America Invaded Iran and had airfields in Iran how are you going to get those Airplanes to Iran without still overflying airspace of the Muslim countries?"

1. I suspect he was overreacting and meant that Israel would launch its strike aircraft from US airfields in Iraq, not in Iran.

2. Afghanistan, now that would be amusing, actually more than Turkey.

3. At least they don't have the complication of European refusal to permit overflight in Europe, as has been the case with other, past missions. (This is something Obama could and should have insisted that Europeans correct in the future.)

* * *

'[messiah] Ronald Reagan"

False analogy. In fact, it was PC to engage in sick hatred of him before Bush came along. I hear one chump on lefty radio engage in this currently, years after Reagan's time in the White House ended. Everything was splendid, says this guy, time after time, in the Sixties and Seventies. Things were being done right! "Then along came RRRRRRRRRRReagan [steam coming out of ears]." Reagan was no American Idol and the PC-weenies in fact loathed him.

"We slaughter sacred cows on a daily basis."

With the emphasis in this case on the sacredness.

Jazz you should watch Kung Pow. Enter the Fist.

Those who do will never question the chosen one again.

we oh wee oh wee oh weeeee.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3rEkcHbhg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtkuNV_1Ots

"We slaughter sacred cows on a daily basis."

LOL

DLS, you can't deny that Regan does have some messiah-istic following in the GOP. Just last week there was an article about the La Governor being the "next Regan". Back in the Primaries it was Romney who was the "next Regan"...

"DLS, you can't deny that Regan does have some messiah-istic following in the GOP."

Oh, no doubt about that. The situation is complicated because the worst people, as with Bush, adopted Reagan not as their messiah but as their devil.

But yes, there are still those (McCain? har) who would say they are the next Reagan or who want endorsers to say "he reminds me of Reagan" [gag].

But it doesn't involve the extent that we see with Obama, not the extremity, not the emotional rather than logical motives (we have seen with Obama supporters here, very flighty and emotional behavior and failure to understand and respond intelligently in replying to what others may say, whereas a vote for Reagan was a stronger-than-usual rejection of liberalism and its consequences _and Carter_ as of 1980), and that (unlike anything with Reagan) actually precedes Obama's actual physical entry into the White House to begin his presidency. Also, Obama worship (bear Reagan and Carter in mind again) is noteworthy and remarkable as it is clearly distinct from Bush hatred. (The two are found frequently together, but this is coincidental.)

The other reason for Reagan refererences is "wistful 'thinking'" -- they yearn for Reagan because he was such a success and represented the public and acted on their behalf so well -- and the GOP hasn't had anyone like that of note since. Note to GOP: Reagan's ideas were great and ephemeral, but *** REAGAN IS DEAD *** and even he would not expected to be re-elected as often as FDR; he might have lost, too, in 1992.

Elrod has made a Reagan analogy and 1980s election analogy that I feel is not correct, but we'll see how strongly he does and by how much it may surpass 1980, or 1984. I'm still wondering if Obama is going to reach that magic 62-38 level (in his favor).

"Ronald Reagan."

He's no mere messiah. Everyone knows he's God-d! (a la Limbaugh for extra pleasure)

Wow!

You get to recycle Rush Limbaugh's talking points and proclaim yourself the slaughterer of sacred cows in the process!!!

I had no idea you were in such obvious possession of the high moral ground!!!

Every candidate running for President--including the one you like--"has put himself forward to lead the free world". I honestly don't see how you can deny that--or why you would deny it.

You want to slaughter sacred cows? Why don't you should start with the ones in your own backyard?

Welcome to TMV.

Where even down here in the comments we're welcome to call out BS!

Come on guys. the "airfields in Iran" thing was obviously a type.

Just like the Iraq War.

The point remains. If not from Iraq, then how? Of course, since the US currently controls Iraqi airspace (Sovereignty is so cool!) that will get us part way there.

George, your overreaction had no reasoning in it, just bellowing and mistaken assumptions which in no way followed from what I wrote. Thicker skin, indeed.

* * *

"If not from Iraq, then how?"

From Israel, as with Iraq in 1981. Don't forget that Israel need not ask and secure permission from its neighbors before conducting a long-range strike on Iran.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middl...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1213...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212...

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/02/3290825

http://www.stratfor.com/israel_scenarios_strike...

http://francona.blogspot.com/2008/06/iran-israe...

George, as much as I like reading your comments, you are making no sense. How can I "recycle" material from a program I don't listen to? I make fun of McCain on a regular basis too. (See my posts with graphics showing him as Nosferatu and others for examples) and I BBQ his idiotic foreign policy constantly. That doesn't mean that I don't also allow myself the freedom to poke a stick at silliness on the other side when I see it. You really are sounding more and more like someone who thinks it's fine to make fun of McCain, but pointing out the "hope and change rainbow ride on a unicorn messiah" aspects of the Obama campaign is somehow a sin. Exactly what sacred cows in my personal back yard would you like me to skewer? There's plenty to make fun of about Bob Barr too, but sadly he's so far out of the running it's almost pointless to do it.

Barak Obama "Wow. Like those Israeli dudes are really thinking about bombing Iran."

Aid "They are always thinking about bombing something. Its like in their jeans or something."

Aid 2 "Genes"

Aid "Whose jeans."

Aid 2 "you said jeans. I corrected you with genes"

Aid "Huh?"

Aid 2 "Genes. You said Jeans."

Aid "I know what I said, why are you saying Jeans, when I said Jeans"

Aid2 " No you said Jeans and I said Genes. You want to get in my jeans, or my Genes give me big boobs."

Aid "You dont have big boobs."

Aid 2 "Well if I had big boobs it would be because of my genes."

Aid "If you had big boobs we would all want to be in your jeans."

Aid 2. "Hah funny. Thats not what I mean. I mean that if I had big boob Genes then I could wear any jeans I wanted and everyone would notice that I had big boobs because of my genes.

Obama 'So what your saying is that the Israelis are big boobs?"

Jazz--

You are--of course--free to write what you like about anything you like. You're the one out there on the front page. I'm not asking you to stop. Just as I'm sure you're not asking me stop questioning you.

Whether of not you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you are repeating one of his major talking points. It's hard for me to believe you don't know that when you do it. But if you say so, okay.

If you actually said something funny (as opposed to the ten millionth reiteration of a six-month-old Limbaughism), maybe I would laugh. Or maybe I'm so thin-skinned I'd cry like a little girl. We're never gonna know, Jazz, unless you can think up something funny. Freshness might be useful there.

Because the ten millionth iteration of a right-wing talking point doesn't make you seem funny. Instead, it makes you seem like you're kind of a right-wing hack.

I appreciate the time you've taken to respond to me. Seriously. Many others in your position would be satisfied with patting their own backs. But even after saying that, even after meaning it, I have to ask you: Do you really think you've slain a sacred cow today?

If "slaying a sacred cow" only counts if you are the first one to do it, then no. Clearly not. Believe me or no, I've never tuned in to Rush Limbaugh. Don't care for him. ( I have followed links to transcripts at times, but never found him interesting.) I get called a left winger too often to worry about my credentials as a right wing hack.

I do find amusement in the prancing nature of the Obama campaign, even while preferring his foreign policy and not caring for his domestic policy. If Obama is elected, I will gladly salute him as my president, which I did not do for W and *would* do for McCain if he wins. If I am the only one who finds humor in the messiah and unicorn metaphors, so be it. I can live with only amusing myself. Just ask my feminist Democratic wife. :-)

Isn't slaying that same old sacred cow multiple times just like beating a dead horse?

Couldn't resist.

I hope you're having a great evening!

You too, George! And not to veer back on topic, but what were your thoughts on the original premise. How WOULD Obama react to an attack on Iran, and how would you like him (or McCain or Barr) to react?

Jazz,
Don't ypu think it would be STUPID for either a president or a candidate to say exactly how he would react to such a horrendous hypohtetical?

We are still interested in preventing a new war, if possible, aren't we,
or are on you on the bomb, bomb bus?

Language matters. Careless language matters more..

Put away your snarks and your blog friends and think for yourself!

Jazz I think your learning why the other bloggers here rarely comment in their own posts. The sharks smell blood when you do. I tried to save you with a stupid post above and have them come after me, but your fresh meat. They've already tasted my mangy hide.

Heck some are even too good to talk to me because I use labels. Like lefty and righty.

Quick stop throwing chum in the water and let the sharks settle down. You insulted Obama with a snark. How rude of you.

Just in case, I wasn't clear,--
To use threatening language, like Hillary did, in a volatile situation is to invite more volatility. Sometimes calm or silence is, indeed, the best message.
We've had endless 'everything on the table' statements from everyone, even Obama.
Do you really imagine anything would be off the table if Israel did attack?
Stop fighting tomorrow's wars today, unless you want to skip today entirely, or unless you want to adopt Bush's and McCain's blustering as a means of public diplomacy. And let me assure you that everything the candidates say publically is part of diplomacy, or the lack thereof.

I'm really disappointed, verging on disgusted, by this fire and brimstone introduction to a very serious subject.

I am having a hard time following the commentary to Shaw's article. I thought we were discussing Israel bombing Iran and what Obama's position on that would be. The Israel/Iran scenerio is possible and the repurcussions would be VERY significant for the US, Israel, Iran, the rest of the Mideast as well as the world's economy. Sounds like serious sh... to me.

First and foremost, I seriously doubt that Israel could fly sufficient sorties on it's own to take out all the nuclear facilities. They would have one shot and even their own practice session only included 150 planes. Since most of the expertise and experimental facilities reside under Tehran University serious collateral damage will result. There will be several hundred Iranian rockets raining down on Israel causing serious collateral damage.

At that point the UN, Europe, China and others will step in and DEMAND a cease fire. Mission not accomplished except for a lot of damaged and dead people. Iran will bring their nuclear program underground never to be seen until finished. If Israel and/or the US ignore the cease fire demands and continue the bombing of Iran then the Shites in Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Bahrain etc will revolt and oil will be shut down and not a single tanker will enter or exit the Straits of Hormuz. Oil will go to $500/b and a world wide depression will result.

This is idiocy of the first order and I find it hard to believe that such an idea is even given serious consideration.

My writing must be even worse than I thought. If anyone thinks I'm *pushing* for war with Iran, that's arse backwards. I would like to avoid it. I'd like to know that Obama won't immediately march to war with Iran if Israel decides to bomb them. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Jazz--

I don't favor air-strikes on Iran. I don't think there's much reason to believe whatever Iran is building would be significantly affected by air-strikes.

I don't think Israel's security would be increased by air-strikes. I don't think Israel's position in the world would be enhanced by air-strikes.

So I hope Obama (or McCain or Barr or Harold Stassen) would do everything possible to keep Israel from making air-strikes. And if it did happen, I'd expect any of them to condemn it.

I'd even expect George W Bush to condemn it. For some reason (I have to confess i don't know why I have acquired this impression, which is all it is), I believe our current president has realized that it not possible to bomb his way to a positive legacy. A belated realization on his part, but one I'd like to encourage.

I'm certainly aware that this is a difficult situation. I am completely, totally, utterly aware of the fact that very bomb-happy contingents are close to the levers of power in all countries concerned. I'm reasonably well aware of how, ah, unsupported by evidence it is for me to have faith in George W Bush to be sensible. Just as I'm concerned that a public cautioning of Israel by the President might encourage the bomb-happy contingents in any of those other countries to behave precipitously.

I can't say I blame Bush, Obama, McCain, Barr or anyone from exercising the better part of valor and being discrete on this issue.

If it all goes horribly wrong, feel free to say you told me so.

You always fight tomorrows wars today. You plan, you plot. You make contingencies. You evaluate, you do what ifs and how comes.

Not fighting tomorrows wars today ensures you are not ready to fight them when they show up.

As for Israel. The invasion of Lebanon showed the world that the premiere military in the middle east. Israel has become a joke. I remember seeing on Fox news one of the special forces......their elite........sobbing to the camera and saying......."We're just kids, we're not ready for this."

Israel's once vaunted military is living off its own reputation that was earned by the blood of those soldiers who came before them and fought for the very survival of israel in 48' up thru the war in 75 and the invasion and occupation of Lebanon in the early 80's.

That is not to slight Israel. They are just not the same country, they have too many people in their country now that demand peace rather then war. The country has grown tired of fighting. Hopefully the Middle East has grown tired with them or they are soon to be no more.

Neocon, I'll insult either Obama or McCain as much as I like and the sharks are free to comment as they see fit. Obama has a silly message with not enough meat on the bones for me. McCain's foreign policy has huge holes in it. Some of Barr's positions on the more radical edge of Lib party ideals make no sense either. I try to give praise where deserved, and deride the silliness. Obama is silly on many things. Regardless of your nick here in comments, I know from reading your opinions that you are an independent thinker who also casts stones and flowers where YOU feel they are deserved, consequences be damned. I'll do the same, thanks. :-)

Fair enough. I'm just an old thick skinned tool pusher whose used to things being tough. I laugh at Obama. Don't have a lot of sympathies for McCain other then I know because he's not getting the GOP support that hes someone to keep my eye on.

Whose gonna be the best President? In my heart. Honestly I hope the democrats sweep all three house and have a cloture proof majority. Then when NOTHING gets done we can finally settle once and for all that tired debate that ITS the GOP's fault.

Then we will know what my daddy used to tell me all the time. A die hard democrat, he used to say, the Democrats just keep the poor, poor so they got a job come next election.

Jazz,
If Obama is silly, it's even sillier to expect a public statement about what Obama would do if......
If McCain or your Barr has half a brain, they will remain equally mum in public.for the time being.
Israel is a sovereign nation, and the US can't tell it what to do. Any influence the US has, has to be broached gingerly in public and the brunt of it has to take place in private. Haven't you been watching how US rhetoric reverberates and causes trouble?

What should be said, In your opinion, that we oppose an attack by Israel, and so encourage Iran to continue with its nuclear plans, or that we would back Israel, and so inflame the entire ME?
Obama's 'silly' vagueness looks by far to be the wisest choice to me.
If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear how.

If Israel were to attack, the question would be, how would Iran retaliate, and what would the US do then, particularly since Israel is not likely to have a 'mission accomplished' moment.?
For candidates to discuss all these maybe's and what if's is madness and can accoomplish nothing except to exacerbate the volatility of the situation.
-------------------------------------
If you think insulting people (your words) passes for an informative use of a blog , persuasive argumentaion or an intelligent examination of issues, then I begin to understand your appreciation for Hot Air and those commenters who mistake nonstop rants for independent thinking (your words).
Verbal bar room brawls is the shortest way to pass from wheat to chaff.

The people who write posts set the tone. Which way do you want to take TMV?

Keep it up, Jazz. Your one of the very few authors I still take the time to read here.

And remember this, if you get the predictable "attack the messenger, the hell with the substance of the post" from George Sorwell, you prove your moderate bona-fides.

Casual's "moderate bona-fides" , as pertaining to this particular post, seem to consist of a kicking and punching style favored by the worst blogs available.

"I, for one, would like to hear a few more specifics." Seems reasonable to me. Why would Obama bring up the obvious unless some other wheels were turning behind his observation? The whole article reads like a premise of possibilities, but that's how a news story works.

Jazz wrote in his post above..............You’ve been a bit wishy-washy on the entire subject over the course of the campaign. I, for one, would like to hear a few more specifics.

They are responding to this. Not the fact that Obama Im sure had this message leaked. There have been surprisingly few leaks from the insider Obama Camp. This message was LEAKED FOR A REASON.

Im sure the reason was to get it to the pundits and hear what the prevailing winds in the political arena are before they decide how to proceed in regards to questions about this in the future.

While Runasim and others seem to have ignored and is one thing Im sure they know very well. Campaigns and administrations leak stuff so that they can put out feelers to understand what to do about this.

Jazz seized on this leak and asked some questions. He put forth EXACTLY WHAT OBAMAS CAMP WANTED TO HEAR. These are the types of questions they will get going forward and they will know and understand how to answer the question.

JAZZ's questions are doing for Obama exaclty what this leak was intended to do. You guys should be happy. Not angry.