Iran

Glenn Greenwald's post this morning reminds me of another troubling thing Obama has recently said:

Smearing people as anti-Semites for cheap political gain is repellent in its own right and merits a response. But this tactic is particularly dangerous now, as the pressure is obviously being ratcheted up in numerous circles to pursue a far more bellicose policy towards Iran. Responding to the types of disgusting smears that are in Rubin's column and many other places, Obama not only appeared before AIPAC last month and vowed that "the danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat"; that Iran's "Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization"; and "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," but also, when asked last week by a Fox News host to play a "word association game" whereby he should say the first word that comes into his mind, Obama -- when the word was "Iran" -- responded as follows: "threat."

Why is the "danger" from Iran "grave" and "real"? Because they are reported to be seeking the technology that serves as the basis for the actual nuclear weapons possessed by our Israeli friends, and by others in the region and around the world?

It's hard to believe that with all we now know about the political hustle that was played on us beginning about six years ago, that the language of our political elites, and our most liberal and informed of them, regarding another oil-enriched, Middle Eastern, and largely feeble country continues to be as loose and credulous as this.

While I hope that before the next war there is some kind of appropriate skepticism in the media and in Congress, I suspect that the next war will not include such niceities as a UN Resolution or an "authorization" vote in Congress.