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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

Couldn't resist.

I hope you're having a great evening!

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.

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?

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?”