Obama takes a stand on Iran

The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday that Obama calls Iran threat to U.S., Israel. Bravo. These remarks are a welcome refresher, and quite on contrast to John Edwards: "Perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace Is the Possibility That Israel Would Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities."

Perhaps Obama read the Guardian report from January that Iran papers reveal 'uranium warhead instructions'. Clearly, he seems more intent on judging others by what they do, not by what they say.

Lynn Sweet gave her preview of Obama's speech here. It is worth noting that Obama was speaking before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's regional forum, so naturally, one might think his rhetoric would be tempered toward his audience. Sweet says:

AIPAC, whose sole interest is U.S.-Israel relations, is one of the most influential lobbying groups in the nation.

Clinton delivered a well-received speech before an AIPAC regional meeting in New York on Feb. 1. The Obama team wanted to get Obama's pro-Israel views -- not well-known -- out front before the big AIPAC conference.

Clearly, in addition to shoring up support from the Israel lobby, it is obvious that the Senator from Illinois does not want to be outdone by Senator Clinton, especially an issue that Sweet cites as "one of the most important concerns for Israel is to ensure that Iran does not get nuclear capability." She continues:

Obama, in his speech, will detail his vision for Israel and the Mideast and expand his views on regional engagement. Last November, in his Iraq address, Obama, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for an "opening dialogue" with Iran and Syria. "Make no mistake," Obama said then, "if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken."

It seems evident from Obama's quotes above that his Iran rhetoric is not just rhetoric. Sweet predicts:

Obama on Friday will call for tougher Iran sanctions, more bilateral diplomacy and declare he is for leaving all military options on the table. He will underscore the need for energy independence so that U.S. Mideast policy is not anchored to the country's huge appetite for fossil fuels.

Obama's camp is well-aware that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz -- in a recurring feature ranking the 2008 U.S. presidential candidates or people who may run on how good they are for Israel -- puts him last on its list.

However, perhaps most noteworthy are her final remarks:

But let me share something. Last August, Obama was in Cape Town, South Africa, at a time when Israel was being criticized for overreacting for its military attacks in Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Obama was speaking to a group at a cultural institution called The Center for the Book, which provided a friendly venue for the Illinois Democratic. The crowd, clearly hostile to Israel, expected Obama to bash Israel on Lebanon. He did not. They were surprised.

Judging by Obama's history, he is consistent in his views, which is rare among most of the Presidential field of candidates. Obama has consistently criticized the Iraq invasion, and to his credit, hasn't wavered much. These recent comments on Iran strengthen the view that he does not backpedal or flip-flop. In a tight primary race with Hillary Clinton, and perhaps John Edwards (if he can catch up), Obama's consistency may give him the edge.

On the contrary, Daily Kos rushes to Iran's defense in his post "Iranian-made" IED's actually made in Iraq. He ends with "Doesn't it suck when trumped up charges and lies designed to justify invasions of other countries get exposed by reality?"

Kos seemingly hopes to find just cause to back up his defense of Iran. Yet, despite this recent report that not all IED's are made in Iran, would he care to address "Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran" as Telegraph of London reported?

Why does Kos defend a regime which takes such actions that seem the anti-thesis of a liberal, peace-loving individual: Iran vows crackdown on 'inappropriately' dressed women

Further, Kos has aligned himself with another repressive regime, Russia: Russia warns U.S. against striking Iran. What does it say of the conflicting emotions at Daily Kos, when the self-styled Democrat cannot even agree with his presidential candidates? Would Kos go so far as to call Iran a "stabilizing force" in the Middle East, as France has done?

Can one honestly think a regime that cracks down on women's clothing, declares the holocaust a hoax, and calls for Israel's destruction a stabilizing force? Who would ever defend such a regime? Daily Kos would - "Champion of the little people."

Sadly, the opinion of many left-leaning intellectuals, pundits and commentators continue to fuel my dissatisfaction with the Democratic party, and drive me further toward the center-right. It puzzles me that after all the lessons history has provided, as a country, we still fall into the same trap. It is the same trap that has ensnared Bill Maher, as he lamented the failed suicide attack on our Vice President. The trap that is spawned by group think, by refusing to look at the facts, by spinning the negative press out of control, and by allowing ourselves to be ruled by our emotions.

What happened to the Democratic party's pragmatism? The pragmatism that beat fascism and launched the highly successful cold war? Today's Democratic party seems only to be in it to win - at any cost - even if that means taking unprincipled stands against the country's own interests. Many Democrats - both registered party voters and politicians alike - have lost sight of what they are fighting and why. Are their positions tactical, logical and sensical? More and more, it appears to me they are falling over each other to pick the opposite stance of the President, in the name of the opposition, and pandering nonsense, but nothing else.

It's sad, really.