There's no such thing as seemlessly returning from a week's vacation overseas and transitioning seemlessly back into your old routine.  It's kind of like a miniature version of moving - you have stuff to remove from your baggage, and that stuff AND the baggage to put away.  And usually you're tired, have jet lag, and just want to collapse on the couch and veg, and the unpacking gets put off.

Speaking as one for whom collapsing on the couch and vegging is a national pasttime, and does not travel, period, I thought I would make a magnanimous bipartisan gesture and help Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Nirvana) unpack his vast quantity of baggage, and particularly go through the soveniers he brought home.

***Here's a nice history revision:

QUESTIONER: "A year ago in South Carolina you said you would meet, in your first year as president, with President Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Is there anything you have heard today here in discussions with Israeli leaders that has made you rethink that pledge or are you still standing by that?"

OBAMA: "Dan, I think you have to take a look at what the question was in South Carolina and how I responded. The question is would I meet with leaders without preconditions in pursuit ... But I think what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. , And that continues to be my position, that if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity. But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation." (Barack Obama, Press Conference, Sderot, Israel, 7/23/08)

Here's the transcript of BO's answer in that South Carolina primary debate a year ago, and my take on it at the time as a gratuity.  Nowhere within it will you find any qualifiers from Ebony JFK.  Indeed, he was so enthusiastic in his glib appeasenikism that he misportrayed Original JFK (who faced down Nikita Khruschev over Cuba) and Ronald Reagan (who clinched victory in the Cold War at Reykavik, Iceland in 1985 when he walked out of his first summit with Mikhail Gorbachev rather than cave on SDI) as rowing in the same bottom-bound boat.  It's not an exaggration to say that he called anything less than a perpetuitous determination to pump the air full of meaningless words to the immense amusement of our enemies - without pre-conditions - as "ridiculous".

This isn't his first crack at this totalitarianistic re-write.  The thing that his debate answer then and hand-waving attempts to "disappear" it now have in common is his impenetrable belief that he can talk anybody into anything.  The same sociopathologic narcissism that characterized the Clintons in their day, and obviously a character defect on which they do not, after all, have the liberal market cornered.

The Golden Child's Bushesque remark about "A nuclear Iran [being] a game-changing situation" and "all options being on the table" is a new one, though.  And the public utterance it is intended to erase from existence isn't even two months old:

When in St. Barry's mind did Iran go from "tiny, non-threatening country" to mortal bane of the Republic?  And why is the Bush Administration moving towards his (original?) position at the exact same time that Bright & Morning Star is (pretending to) move towards Bush's and McCain's on Iraq?  Might the latter be because victory in the latter is so incontrivertible that even the Enemy Media is running up the white flag on running up the white flag?

***Speaking of which, is the bloom falling off the rose of the literal love affair between False Messiah and the Tingle Brigades?

Of course not.  At least not in the practical sense of their doing everything within their power to ensure that their god ascends Hillary's throne.  The marriage will remain in place for at least "eight to ten years".

But the giddy, butterflies-in-the-stomach, sweaty-palmed, dry-mouthed romantic phase of it may indeed be at an end:

Ensign Ed eventually gets to the money point:

[T]he larger point [Andrea] Mitchell makes is that Obama is being “handled” to a high degree, and that the campaign is keeping him as far away from the press as possible.  They’re only allowing for controlled events and images to appear, which goes against the entire idea of “New Politics” and transparency — and it also strongly suggests that the campaign can’t trust Obama to handle himself.

Beats me what they're afraid of.  In the old days, if a Democrat was a lush (LBJ) or a gigolo (JFK), the press would protect their privacy.  Perhaps their motivation for doing so wasn't quite as partisan as it would be today, but that was definitely a major factor.  I find it moderately astonishing that Obamanation poobahs don't realize just how deep runs the "journalistic" devotion to their supreme being - and that if there is a way to squander that tsunami of good will, it is by paranoiacally stiffing reporters whose only lust is to bow down and worship him.

Rubber, meet road:

Reporters who cover Obama these days grouse that Obama’s flacks shroud the campaign in secrecy and provide little to no access. “They’re more disciplined than the Bush people,” a reporter on the Obama trail gripes. “There was this idea of being transparent, but they’re not. They’re total tightwads with information.”

In June, there was something of a revolt after Obama ditched the press corps on his campaign plane for a secret meeting with Clinton at Senator Dianne Feinstein’s house in Washington, leaving the reporters trapped on the flight to Chicago. The D.C. bureau chiefs of half a dozen news organizations, including the late Tim Russert, sent an angry letter to Obama aides Robert Gibbs and David Plouffe and threatened not to reimburse the campaign for the cost of the flight. “The decision to mislead reporters is a troubling one,” they wrote. “We hope this does not presage a relationship with the Obama campaign that is not based on a mutual respect for the truth.” After the incident, the press corps decided that one pool reporter would keep Obama in sight at all times. “It’s a body watch,” one reporter jokes.

Meanwhile, there have been widespread complaints over the shortage of spots to accompany Obama on his tour of the Middle East and Europe. A few days before the tour departed, Time magazine was told it couldn’t send a photographer along, and, on July 22, NBC foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell complained on-air that the only images the press had received of Obama meeting with the troops was released by the U.S. military. (To be fair, congressional delegations to Iraq are kept secret for security purposes). And there’s been widespread grumbling that the campaign revoked New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza’s spot on the trip as retribution for the magazine’s recent satirical cover. These may or may not be legitimate complaints – the evidence is mixed – but the press is hardly inclined to give the campaign the benefit of the doubt.

You can take it to the bank that Lucifer is "arrogant" and beset by a "sense of entitlement" when his own media base is starting to publicly declare it.

Of course, that was once John Sith McCain's base.  But as daunting a task as he has trying to dupe conservatives into backing him, 'tis doubtful that Lord Queeg will be able to spare the woo-time.  Though it's obvious his jealousy is raging just beneath the surface.

***AP produces two clips of two different Obama alibis for why he skipped visiting the U.S. military hospitals at Rammstein and Landstuhl, Germany.  Watch them both and then tell me if you're not at least as confused trying to reconcile the two as Ba-ROCK comes across delivering them:

The best Allah can do is this:

[W]ith Fox he’s stressing that he didn’t want to distract from the troops and in the presser he’s stressing that he didn’t want it to be perceived as political.

The distinction without a difference is that both are big, steaming piles of chicken [salad].  Nothing with Barack Hussein Obama is ever about anything but him.  He doesn't give a rat's ass about the troops apart from those he can use or bamboozle.  The military wouldn't let him use the wounded soldiers in Germany, so he had no reason to go see them.  Even the latter explanation, which is supposed to be a high-minded and sympathetic, is still centered on how HE would be perceived.  If his priority had truly been the troops, he'd have gone with as small an entourage as possible and simply spent private time with them, listening and giving an encouraging word, free of ideological pontificating or partisan calculation.  I imagine they'd have appreciated that, and he might even have picked up some new supporters for his selfless effort.

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Joe Repya phrased it this way:

The most solemn duty of a commander in chief is to fulfill his responsibility to the men and women who serve this country in uniform. Barack Obama had scheduled a visit with wounded American troops who have served with honor and distinction in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he broke that commitment, instead flitting from one European capital to the next. Several explanations were offered, none was convincing and each was at odds with the statements of American military leaders in Germany and Washington. For a young man so apt at playing president, Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands of the office he seeks. Visits with world leaders and speeches to cheering Europeans shouldn’t be a substitute for comforting injured American heroes

The lesson the Not-President has yet to learn?  If you're explaining, you're (1) off-message, (2) on the defensive, and (3) losing.  If you're explaining badly, increase all three factors logarithmically.

Largely because it makes your opponent's PR job of ripping you from rectum to belly button that much easier:

I don't buy much of what Maverick says as a general rule - Once a RINO, always a RINO - but when he says that if confronted with one of Obama's "Why I didn't visit the troops" alibis, there'd have been a "seismic event," I believe him.  Just as I think most people not zonked on Barry's Kool-Aid don't believe that he wanted to play tourist more than practice a role that ALL presidents have to fulfill at one time or another.

***And, whaddaya know, this conclusion appears to be reflected in a couple of polls that have emerged since Ego Trip 2008 came to a merciful close.

A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics survey indicates that four-fifths of the public perceived Obama's "fact-finding junket" as either entirely or partially a week-long political stunt, and two-thirds believe that the cable and broadcast networks and major news services are extensions of Obamanation in everything but name.

And look where USA Today/Gallup found BO's "bounce":

A surprising poll released Monday confirms Senator Barack Obama's worst nightmare: he actually lost ground to Senator John McCain after a global trip meant to buck up his sagging credentials in foreign and military policy.

The USA Today/Gallup poll has McCain leading Obama by four points, 49% to Obama's 45%, among likely voters.

Just last month, the same poll had McCain trailing by six points to the neophyte U.S. senator....

The polls suggest that Obama's efforts to act like a president abroad - even though he has yet to be elected -- may have backfired among American voters.

In Berlin, Obama spoke to 200,000 cheering Germans. The Democratic candidate used the foreign platform to express the view that he was a "fellow citizen of the world" and apologized for America's imperfections.

In other words, Europe's redeemer has become John Kerry with a tan to the folks - the voters - back home.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."  Because of his stupendous conceit and solipsism, his breaking the Rammstein/Landstuhl date is the only lasting public memory of his "coming out" world globetrot.  Now maybe this poll swoon is an aberration and he'll rebound back to the underwhelming lead he enjoyed before it.  But - maybe he won't.

If Barack Hussein Obama wants to win this election, he is going to have to first admit to himself that yes, it is possible for him to lose it.  Then he has to figure out how to fake humility in the next three months.  Because it is day-glo clear that he possesses none of that virtue for real.

...of a nuclear Iran:

The [UN] investigation ran into trouble just months after being launched [last year]. Deadline after deadline was extended because of Iranian foot-dragging. The probe, originally meant to be completed late last year, spilled into the first months of 2008, and beyond…

Officials say that among the evidence given to the IAEA are what seem to be Iranian draft plans to refit missiles with nuclear warheads; explosives tests that could be used to develop a nuclear detonator, and a drawing showing how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads. There are also questions about links between Iran’s military and civilian nuclear facilities.

[Thurs]day, [Iranian Vice President, Gholam Reza] Aghazadeh appeared to signal that his country was no longer prepared even to discuss the issue with the IAEA.

Investigating such allegations “is outside the domain of the agency,” he said after meeting with Mr. ElBaradei. Any further queries on the issue “will be dealt with in another way,” he said, without going into detail.

Does that suggest to you as strongly as it does to me that the mullahs don't need to buy any more time because they've now got what they need to start churning out nuclear warheads?:

Speaking to scholars in the northeastern Iranian city of Mashhad, Ahmadinejad said that Iran had more than 5,000 centrifuges. A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency in May said Iran had about 3,500 centrifuges running. Centrifuges can produce nuclear material suitable for generating electricity, or if highly enriched, for use in an atomic bomb.

"The West wanted us to stop," Ahmadinejad was quoted as telling the scholars. "We resisted, and now they want to resume negotiations."

There was confusion about the actual number Ahmadinejad cited. One Iranian news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying Iran had 6,000 centrifuges working, before taking the report off its website. Another said he referred to "hundreds and thousands" of centrifuges.

In theory, 6,000 centrifuges running continuously can produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb in six months.

In reality, by contrast, the Iranians may send their first warhead rolling out of the assembly line as early as next month.

Sounds to me like the "ribbon-cutting" ceremony is imminent.  Only question seemingly remaining is where they're going to bash it with the (72-virgin) champagne.

"I think you're all [bleep]ed in the head. We were ten months from the [bleep]ing surrender and you hadda do the Surge. Well I'll tell you something. This is no longer a "fact-finding trip".  It's a quest. It's a quest for defeat. I'm gonna retreat and you're gonna retreat. We're all gonna bug outta here so [bleep]ing fast we'll need plastic surgery to remove our [bleep bleep] smiles. You'll be whistling The World Turned Upside Down out of your [bleep]s!  You gotta be crazy!  The messiah has to go on a pilgrimage to get your worship?!? Praise me! Holy [bleep]!"

-Not-President Barack Hussein Obama to U.S. CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus and his staff in Iraq over the weekend (reportedly)

~  ~  ~

I wasn't part of the Enemy Media pilgrimmage that followed BO everywhere he went on his "coming out world tour" like the Verizon network crowd in those cell phone service commercials.  The least colorful reason being that I do not, nor will I ever own a pair of kneepads.  But I like to think of the following as kind of a personal journal of mine would have read if I'd been the proverbial fly on the wall.

SATURDAY, JULY 19: What the hell's up with Maliki?  Has Lucifer converted him from Shia Islam to Obamism?:

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. US presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about sixteen months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.

Yeah, he sticks in that "positive change" caveat - which Der Spiegel later removed - but hasn't Maliki been paying attention to what General Petraeus has been saying and continues to say about the folly of hard & fast withdrawal timetables?  I don't care how much he tries to spin it as declaring victory, it is a victory that the Iraqi military is not yet ready to sustain on its own.  Defeat can still be dragged out of victory's jaws, and Obama's sixteen month retreat scheme that Maliki declared guardedly peachy-keen would accomplish precisely that.  Can this even be explained as pandering to his base?

SUNDAY, JULY 20: Perhaps not in fact, but in his perception.  Indeed, Maliki may not have become an Obamasciple so much as Obama may have become Maliki's, er, tool:

According to senior Iraqi officials, the decision to play U.S. politics emerged last month after Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari’s trip to Washington for meetings with Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Obama and Senator John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee…

With the talks [on a long-term security partnership] bogged down, the Iraqis sensed desperation by the Americans to wrap up a deal quickly before the presidential campaign was in full swing.

“Let’s squeeze them,” al-Maliki told his advisers, who related the conversation to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The squeeze came July 7, when al-Maliki announced in Abu Dhabi that Iraq wanted the base deal to include some kind of timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.

Maybe Obama and Maliki are using each other for their own respective domestic political ends.  Which says far worse about Maliki than it does about BO, because the "unstoppable momentum" for "liberationis interruptus" announcement of an ironclad timetable would likely generate would create far greater and more immediate perils for Maliki than it would St. Barry.  To say nothing of the Iraqi PM being that bereft of character and integrity.  And perspicacity, since Obama will pull out regardless of the security situation.

Here's another thought: What entitles the junior Illinois senator to conduct de facto negotiations with a foreign government's head of state?  When is the friggin' Logan Act ever going to be enforced on Democrat politicians?

MONDAY, JULY 21: No less an authority than the aforementioned Surge architect (hint: NOT Darth Queeg) testifies that al Qaeda has shifted its focus and efforts from Iraq to Afghanistan - which is to say, northwestern Pakistan, which raises the question of how much a "surge" strategy can accomplish in that theater when the real prize is in Islamabad.

Obama is going out of his way to sound as panicked about Afghanistan as he does blase about Iraq.  A sentiment not shared by his nutroot worshippers, who aren't the only ones wondering why a counterinsurgency strategy he has never stopped crapping on when applied in Iraq is his chosen means of restabilizing Afghanistan.  This is a rather large clue that Ba-ROCK isn't really serious about an Afghan Surge, much less his year-old ultimatum to the Paks to crush al Qaeda for us or suffer invasion - which would be the application of the original strategy and premise for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

It's all very confusing.  If that's by Team Hussein's deliberate design, then it is serendipitous that their guy appears to be as polleaxed as his listeners:

OBAMA: The United States has to take a regional approach to the problem. Just as we can’t be myopic and focus only on Iraq, we also can’t think that we can solve the security problems here in Afghanistan without engaging the Pakistan government.

LOGAN: How do you compel Pakistan to act?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that the U.S. government provides an awful lot of aid to Pakistan, provides a lot of military support to Pakistan. And to send a clear message to Pakistan that this is important, to them as well as to us, that I think — that message has not been sent.

Oh, really?:

We have not sent a message to the Pakistani government that targeting Taliban and al-Qaeda is important. This will be surprising news to Khalid Sheik Muhammad, arrested by Pakistani authorities in Rawalpindi on March 1, 2003....

Obama will persuade Musharraf to take a tougher line on groups that have tried to kill him. Apparently bombs going off in their cities is insufficient to get the Pakistanis to crack down, but Obama's threat to their aid package will.

Actually, this is consistent with his "retreat to force the Iraqi government to do his bidding" logic.  And will likely meet with about as much success.

Remarkably, the CBS interviewer tried to pin Obama down on what he would do if he can't get Prime Minister Gallani to do his military heavy-lifting for him.  Not so remarkably, the Chosen One was left going "humina, humina, humina":

OBAMA: I think that in order for us to be successful, it’s not going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We’ve got training camps that are growing and multiplying…

LOGAN: Would you take out all those training camps?

OBAMA: Well, I think that what we’d like to see is the Pakistani government take out those training camps.

LOGAN: And if they won’t?

OBAMA: Well, I think that we’ve got to work with them so they will.

LOGAN: But would you consider unilateral U.S. action?

OBAMA: You know, I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it’s absolutely vital to the security interests of both the United States and Pakistan.

She may as well have been speaking Sanskrit to the President of Presidents (or any other non-English language).  Obama is convinced he can talk anybody into anything.  It's why he refuses to genuinely abandon his "I'll talk to any enemy any time, anywhere" stance.  It's the sort of lib conceit that, ironically, is much like the best-laid military plans: they survive right up until first contact with the enemy.  The difference is, military planners adapt on the fly, because (1) they have to and (2) they EXPECT to.  Such hard-headed realism, to say nothing of humility, is as foreign to His Eminence as the Skinny-Dippin' Wolf Women of Planet Heineken.  When the Paks don't "listen to reason,"  - or if they did, hit the terrorist camps inside their own territory, and generated a backlash (perhaps aided and facilitated by the pro-Taliban ISI) that enabled al Qaeda to take over the government - the self-humiliating national prostration process will begin in earnest; where it will end I really don't want to contemplate.  Perhaps with an Obama direct presidential diplomacy pilgrimmage to Waziristan (or Islamabad) for a summit with OBL, where he'll throw Gallani AND Musharraf under the bus and recognize al Qaeda as Pakistan's legitimate government.  In exchange for what?  Lemme think.  Ummmm - how about not returning to Iraq.  Yeah, let's go with that.  Besides, Iran will have annexed Mesopotamia by that time, anyway.

It's difficult to talk a good war strategizing game when everybody except you sees that you don't know what you're talking about.  It becomes bloody impossible when you give every indication of not knowing in which direction time flows.  From the same CBS interview:

LOGAN: Because you do have a situation seven years on into this war where Osama bin Laden and all his lieutenants and all the leaders of the Taliban, they’re still there. And they’re inside Pakistan.

OBAMA: Right. It’s a huge problem. And first of all, if we hadn’t taken our eye off the ball, we might have caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute themselves.

Ah, that old left-wing chestnut.  Like we're incapable of waging war in more than one theater at the same time (Of course, if Obama gets his way, we will be).  And as if the beginning of deployment of forces to Kuwait for OIF, which began four months AFTER bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora, generated a temporal rift that reached back and sucked U.S. troops forward in time and several hundred miles to the west.

Like they say, "If ya can't convince 'em, confuse 'em."  Which I suppose now qualifies as holy writ.

TUESDAY, JULY 22: Birds of a feather....?:

Members of the most active West Bank terror organization are set to serve in security forces being deployed to protect Senator Barack Obama during his trip to the West Bank tomorrow, WND has learned.

Obama is due to visit Israeli officials in Jerusalem and leaders of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank city of Ramallah as part of a wider Middle Eastern and European tour that includes Jordan, France and Germany.

According to security officials coordinating deployments of forces with the PA for Obama's Ramallah visit, members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah's declared military wing, have been called upon by the PA to participate in the protection of Obama, particularly in securing the perimeter during a scheduled meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas...

..."Maybe the Israelis will try something because of Obama's policy on Israel, which the Zionists don't like, but we will certainly protect Obama. We are professional security forces," the Al Aqsa member said.

"Maybe the Israelis will try something"?  This is the sort of anti-Semitic, terrorist toDsaH'pu that BO has signed off on for his Judea/Samaria security detail?  Or is this another reminder that everybody in the West appears to have forgotten that the only true difference between Fatah and Hamas is that the former aren't theocrats?

Either way, I have to differ with J-Ger - I don't think the terrorist-schmoozer will be in any jeopardy.  After all, if Millenium Man's Weathermen discipleship is any indication, he'll be among his own kind.

Also can't let Obama's incoherence to Katie Couric go unremarked.

Tomato:

COURIC: ....if General Petraeus or the chairman of the joint chiefs, Admiral Mullen, say to you, “Hey, President Obama …”

OBAMA: Right.

COURIC: …if that comes to pass, “you cannot take out the final complement of combat troops. You need them in the [Iraq] theater,” you would say?

OBAMA: I will always listen to the commanders on the ground. And I will make an assessment based on the facts at that time.

Tomahto:

COURIC: But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support [the surge] … so I’m just trying to understand this.

OBAMA: Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision — to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

If Obama isn't listening to Petraeus on not imposing withdrawal time tables, wouldn't have listened to him on the Surge in the first place, and refuses to acknowledge that Petraeus was right and he was wrong even after the fact....

Oh, heck, you fill in the rest.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23: Has the Enemy Media subsided into post-orgasmic drowsiness?  First Katie Couric lightly roasts His Unholiness, then the Washington Post turns the burners on high:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki’s timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama’s. More significant, it would be “a timetable which Iraqis set” — not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki “wants some flexibility in terms of how that’s carried out.”

Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq’s rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.

Sounds like Maliki got what he was using Obama to obtain, and is now throwing the Not-President under the bus before BO can do it to him.  Meanwhile, was the Illinois senator listening to the people whom he credits in lieu of the Surge for the "Anwar awakening"?

Of course not.  And the WaPo is no less belatedly skeptical about his ersatz warmongering vis-a-vie Afghanistan:

Yet Mr. Obama’s account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is “the central front” for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country’s strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world’s largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama’s antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

The only realities Obama is concerned with are the ones that will make him the next president of the United States.  After November 4th, his core ideology will resume being his guide, and his commitment to beefing up our forces in Afghanistan will vanish like a popped soap bubble.  He'll abandon Iraq; if he actually tries to redeploy forces to the east he'll be bludgeoned into running away from that theater as well.  The end result will be two hostile, irrational, fanatical nuclear Islamic theocracies side by side in South Asia, one Shiite, one Sunni, and both implacably dedicated to the eradication of Israel and the United States.

But look on Light-Bringer's bright side: now nobody can say he hasn't been to Iraq and Afghanistan lately.

You know President George W. Obama's K-Mart deck chair act with the Iranians from earlier this week?  Do I really have to report how it turned out, like the result is actually news?

Oh, bleep it, sadist that I am, I'm doing it anyway:

The presence of [Undersecretary of State William] Burns had led to hopes of compromise on a formula under which Iran would agree to stop expanding its enrichment activities…

But doubt was cast over the value of talks less then an hour after they started, when Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation, appeared to indicate that Tehran was not prepared to budge on enrichment.

“Suspension — there is no chance for that,” he told reporters gathered in the courtyard of Geneva’s ornate City Hall, the venue of the negotiations.

There also appeared to be little progress inside the talks.

You know why they blatantly dissed Burns, don't you?  He wouldn't be nearly a valuable enough hostage.  They're holding out until the real, genuine, honest-to-Allah President of the United States of America himself makes the pilgrimmage to Tehran, whereafter they can seize him and start "negotiations" interest - only ones having nothing to do with their nuclear weapons program.  Like, maybe, dismantling Israel for them and building a string of gas chambers and crematoria in the Holy Land for the mullahs' use after we vacate the region.  Hey, it'd be giving us a head start before they came after us next with the nukes they were able to save from not having to use them on the Jews.

I think it's pretty clear it's Obama they're waiting for, because he'll be foolish enough to actually go.

In the meantime, how many contemptuous rebuffs of ourselves and the EUnuchs does this make by now?  Has anybody bothered to keep a running tally?  It's like watching the Skipper and Gilligan arm wrestle.  How many times do Iranian "negotiators" have to sneeringly tell us to go jump in the septic tank on uranium enrichment before somebody on the Western side finally grasps and accepts that diplomacy on Iranian nukes is futile, pointless, and has ventured to the farthest reaches of neurosis?

The answer appears to be infinity, as Javier Solana (who, if you'll recall, was the BS-spouting NATO Secretary-General during Bill Clinton's rape of Serbia nine years ago), speaking for us and the EU, has arranged yet another meeting with the mullahgarchists two weeks from now.  To what avowed purpose?  Apparently to "give them more time" to consider the appallingly generous bribe - oh, sorry, "incentive package" - that the Iranians chortlingly ignored a month ago.

Sometimes, late at night when everything is quiet, I wonder what it'd be like to be the proverbial fly on the wall during Guardian Council meetings and see whether the Ayahtollahs really do roar with laughter at our insatiable appetite for public humiliation.  I guess it goes to show that history really is cyclical, most especially its worst dynamics.  Just as Adolph Hitler wrote his blueprint for conquest of first Germany, then Europe, and then the entire planet, then started systematically working his way through it right in front of his intended victims, and they never lifted a finger to stop him but instead just pumped the air full of pointless words, so the Islamic Republic is proclaiming its intention to build nuclear weapons with which to annihilated Israel and the West, and is steadily working towards that goal, and yet we, the mullahs intended victims, refuse to lift a finger to stop them, but instead ply them endlessly and obsequiously for an endless river of extraneous dialogue.  The former resulted in global war, sixty million deaths, and near genocide of world Jewry; the latter will result in far worse carnage, and finishing the job the Nazis started.

Yet all we care about is another meeting.  And another and another and another and another and another, and then another beyond that.  Because one of those meetings might be the "breakthrough" that the diplodiddlers have been waiting for for...how many years now?

Some - perhaps many - who read my words on this tiresome yet terrifying subject doubtless would brand me a warmonger.  Which would be [drumroll, please] a smear (Yes, Jon Frederson, I remember you.).  In truth, I have no inherent hostility to diplomacy; it's a tool of statecraft just as military force is.  I agree that talking should be the first resort, and unleashing the dogs of war the last.

But if negotiations go nowhere, you have to be willing to walk away from them and consider other options.  The point of diplomacy isn't to keep yammering until you produce a signed piece of paper to wave around; it is to attain your foreign policy objectives.  In this case, our objective is to deny the Iranian theocracy nuclear weapons.  It was clear years ago that they were, and are, NEVER going to willingly acede to that demand, no matter what or how much we offer them in return.  They won't take bribes, they have no better nature to which to appeal (because they think we're the evil ones), sanctions won't budge them (any more than they did Saddam Hussein), and after all this groveling, to say nothing of merely having to turn on CNN to gauge the American domestic political climate, it's safe to say that we're incapable of intimidating them.  And given that they would welcome a nuclear conflagration - why else do you think they're building their own nukes? - it's questionable at best whether there are any circumstances under which they could EVER be intimidated.

All of this diplomatic five-knuckle-shuffling could have been distilled down to a single ten-second exchange:

WEST: Please stop developing nuclear weapons.

IRAN: Kiss our ass, infidels!  We will make you all BURN!

That's where diplomacy should have ended.  Genuine negotiating can only produce a constructive result when both sides respect each other.  Ronald Reagan would never have gotten a verifiable mid-range ballistic missile treaty out of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988 had he not told the Soviet dictator to have relations with a borscht in Reykavik three years earlier after Gorby demanded that the Gipper give up SDI.  That same credibility is why the Berlin Wall fell just two years after the fortieth President went to the Brandenberg Gate in Berlin and demanded that "Mr. Gorbachev" tear it down.

Can anybody possibly believe that after years of playing Morton Goldthwait to the mullahs' Paige Fox, the Iranians could EVER have the slightest subatomic particle of respect for the EUnuchs or ourselves EVER again?

I know why the Iranians keep up this unmitigated charade: (1) to gain the time to build their nuclear arsenal to Russianesque proportions; (2) to indulge the same kind of psychotic fascination that compels us to looky-loo at grisly car wrecks or watch Quint get devoured by the great white shark at the end of Jaws; and (3) sadism.  But why do WE persist?  Foreign policy battered wife syndrome?  A lost bet?  Turban envy?

If there's a bright side to this bottomless embarrassment, it's that it will not, after all, go on forever.  Sooner or later (probably sooner) the mullahs will break off negotiations.

What comes next will require no words - beyond a whole lotta praying, followed by a reckoning with the so-called "leaders" that let it happen by those who survive.

I promise you, those words will be anything but pointless.

Let me print two news story ledes from the past two days, redacting a single name, and then see if you can guess whether they're from, as it were, the ghost of presidential present or the ghost of presidential future:

[T]he [REDACTED] administration has decided to abandon [REDACTED] longstanding position that [REDACTED] will only meet face-to-face with Iran after it first suspends uranium enrichment as demanded by the United Nations Security Council…

All of the [REDACTED] administration’s negotiating partners, particularly the Europeans and the Russians, have been pressing Washington to join the talks. They welcomed the decision to send [REDACTED] as an important signal by the [REDACTED] administration[REDACTED] that it is seeking a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis [REDACTED]…

Wow.  Eight redactions and it's still difficult to conceal which administration is being referred to.  Let's see if I have better luck with the second quote:

The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in thirty years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy [REDACTED] President [REDACTED].

The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country…

The US has had to rely on British diplomats based in Tehran, as well as other diplomats, for information about the inner workings of Iranian politics. Having its own staff would give them access to students, dissidents and others. The staff would also process visa applications, at present handled by a small office in Dubai, which is difficult for Iranians to get to.

Alrighty, then.  Did these two blurbs come from my crystal ball dialed into the Obama channel, or is it really, truly, actually possible that George W. Bush has degenerated into a bigger wimp than his father ever was?

The answer is: "B," Bush is a wimp.  A wimp that has apparently decided to assist his successor in getting us all killed.  Oh, sorry, "it is seeking a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis and not moving toward military action against Iran."  Excepting, of course, that there isn't any "peaceful resolution to the nuclear crisis" with Iran.  Either we (or the Israelis) take pre-emptive military action to "disarm" the mullahgarchy now, or they launch a nuclear war against us (and the Israelis) as soon as next month, but certainly no longer than in the next few years.  No wonder the Russians are pleased by this depressing capitulation; it signals the death of the last hope of the West avoiding a catastrophic war at the mullahgarchy's hands, which will play right into those of Czar Putin and his ChiComm benefactors.

I profoundly disagree with AP on one crucial point:

Bush has no choice, really: The “rush to war” narrative on Iraq is so poisonous by now that he can’t afford a replay if the time comes for action on Iran.

Bullbleep.  Bush didn't give a rat's ass what anybody thought after 9/11; he did what needed to be done to defend the country and its interests and let the political fortunes fall where they may.  Which, of course, was why he was so popular back then.  For all the derisive, derogatory Dem use of the epithet "cowboy," that's what Americans wanted from their president - and I think still do today, if anybody on the GOP side would grow a set and offer it to them.

Remember too that he invaded Afghanistan and Iraq before his re-election campaign ever commenced.  He had a second term to lose if things went wrong.  But he did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.  What's he got to lose by doing the right thing now?  In 2005-06, I suppose you could have said his party's control of Congress, but it was his Obamaesque hiding behind futile diplodiddling that allowed the Iranians to wreak havoc and chaos in Iraq, "poison" the public's perception of our efforts to stabilize that country, and destroy the GOP majorities his uncharacteristic and feckless caution was intended, at least in part, to preserve.  His legacy?  How is bequeathing the world several million more dead Jews and God knows how many incinerated European and/or American cities better than at least having tried to take military action to try and prevent it?

It was T.S. Eliot who wrote, "This is the way the world ends - not with a bang, but a whimper".  'Tis the bitterest of ironies that a bang inspired George W. Bush's greatest foreign policy accompishment, and the whimper that is unraveling it that will end up leading to a much bigger bang.

Care to take bets on whether President Hussein will blame it on Bush?

Blunt words for George W. Bush from a man known for unvarnished candor - but their truth is undeniable.  Particularly when you recall to whom Dubya will be handing off the presidential baton....

As the Iranians began a fresh set of war "games," today, they also carried out a dress rehersal of the nuclear delivery vehicles they "insist" they're not pursuing with a zealot's fervor:

Iran test-fired nine missiles on Wednesday and warned the United States and Israel it was ready to retaliate if they attacked the Islamic Republic over its disputed nuclear projects....

"We warn the enemies who intend to threaten us with military exercises and empty psychological operations that our hand will always be on the trigger and our missiles will always be ready to launch," Revolutionary Guards air force commander Hossein Salami said, according to ISNA news agency.

In televised comments, he said thousands of missiles were ready to be fired at "specific and pre-determined targets." Missiles were shown soaring from desert launchpads, leaving long vapor trails.

Iran should "refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

In practical terms, they mullahs already have the trust of "the world" if the world isn't willing to take military action to "disarm" them.  Indeed, it's the mullahgarchy that sounds like it's spoiling for a fight, and judging by the pathetic paralysis that continues to grip the Bush Administration, it may not be long before Iran initiates hostilities all on its own.

But if the long-deceased "Cowboy George" persona still carries any street cred in Tehran, they won't have long to cool their heels before the green light flashes like a supernova:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday that harsh U.S. rhetoric toward Iran appeared to be contributing to the surge in oil prices and that a calmer approach might help soothe the markets.

"There are some geopolitical issues that affect the price of oil," he added. "So for us to ratchet down the rhetoric when it comes to Iran, for example, and engage in tough, principled diplomacy, as I've called for, might calm the markets down."

What "harsh" rhetoric?  Begging the mullahs to stop their weapons-grade uranium processing and pleading with them to stop their missile tests and entreating them to discontinue their war games and otherwise whining about their open, overt, more-obvious-than-a-huge-forehead-zit-on-prom-night that we make a big public show of declining to confront any other way but by more of the same futile, idiotic "diplomacy" that has failed miserably for years and years and years is "harsh rhetoric"?  This latest round of sabre-rattling has come entirely from the Iranians, not us.  How much lower can our "rhetoric" possibly be ratcheted, for heaven's sake?  Moreover, how is meek, timid murmuring compatible with "tough, principled diplomacy"?  What does that phrase even mean to Lucifer, anyway?  Particularly in light of how he's heaved just about every principle he ever embraced in his political career overboard in the past three months.

The confluence of a nuclear mullahgarchy and an Obama presidency is a demonic convergence if ever there was one.  One that I frankly do not believe America, in its current role as benevolent global hegemon, will survive.

Those are the stakes of what remains of the Bush presidency.  If nuclear war in the Middle East isn't the legacy he wishes to leave behind, Dubya will take action while he still can.

Tick...tick...tick:

Intelligence information received by Western diplomats reports that Iran has "resumed" [heh] building equipment used for constructing atomic weapons.

According to the London-based Daily Telegraph, the latest intelligence indicates that the work is aimed at developing a bomb according to a blueprint provided by Pakistani scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, father of the Pakistanian nuclear program who sold information on building atom bombs to Iran in the early 1990s.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, along with senior officials from its Atomic Energy Agency, is reportedly directing the clandestine project that has been concealed from United Nation’s inspection teams.

That would be the same Iranian Revolutionary Guard that is fighting us in Iraq and had this to say yesterday:

Israel and U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf would be among Iran's first targets if it comes under attack, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards warned as they began a military exercise.

The Web site of the elite Iranian force posted a statement late Monday quoting guard official Ali Shirazi as saying that Iran would retaliate against any military strike by targeting Tel Aviv and U.S. warships in the Gulf.

"The Zionist regime is pushing the White House to prepare for a military strike on Iran," Shirazi was quoted as saying.

"If such a stupidity is done by them, Tel Aviv and the U.S. naval fleet in the Persian Gulf will be the first targets which will be set on fire in Iran's crushing response."

In short, "Don't try to stop us from nuking you, or we'll gas and plague you."

Europe's response?:

European Union Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana tells the Jerusalem Post he hopes to hold talks with the Iranian nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, before the end of the month to diffuse tensions in the region.

“There’s been no response yet. We are still talking among ourselves, but we hope to have a response soon… hopefully by the end of the month,” Solana says.

And our own?

Contrary to some published reports, the U.S. did not give Israel the go-ahead for an attack on Iran when Adm. Michael Mullen visited Israel in late June.

That’s the word from professor Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official and currently the top defense analyst at ABC-TV. He was also Senator John McCain's national security assistant....

Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper reports that Mullen said the President, the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are working through diplomatic channels to put pressure on Iran: "The best way to solve it diplomatically is for the United States to work with other nations to send a focused message, and that is that you will be isolated and you will have economic hardship if you continue trying to enrich," explained Mullen....

According to the Jerusalem Post, the U.S. “has opted at this point to stick to the diplomatic track in its efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear, and has made clear to Israel that it shouldn’t attack Iran without White House approval, Cordesman said.”

And just imagine - that's BEFORE Barack Hussein Obama takes over.

According to Shabtai Shavit, adviser to the Israeli parliament's defense and foreign affairs committee, Iran is fewer than twelve months from achieving its nuclear ambitions - possibly as little as two.  He says that as soon as they have nuclear weapons, they will use them.  And that appears to be just fine with their intended victims.

We stand at the precipice of an apocalyptic abyss, complacently convinced that it's just an illusion, and if it's real we'll never fall off, and if we do, all we have to do is flap our arms real hard and we'll be just fine.  And besides, that theory of gravity is just a load of alarmism.

We are not whistling past the graveyard, but plunging headlong into it; and the mullahs are holding all the shovels.

Tick...tick...tick...

You may be surprised to learn I haven't read that many Tom Clancy novels.  I've read Red Storm Rising and I've seen all the ones that have made it to the big screen.  But there is another that has never been movie-ized but whose 1,384 pages I devoured in two closely proximate sittings, for reasons that anybody else who has read Executive Orders should instantly recognize: 

The American political situation takes a disturbing turn as the President, Congress, and Supreme Court are obliterated when a Japanese terrorist [crashes] a 747 [into] the Capitol [during a State of the Union address]. Meanwhile the Iranians are unleashing an Ebola virus threat on the country. Jack Ryan, [former] CIA agent, is cast in the middle of this maelstrom. Because of a recent sex scandal, Ryan was appointed vice president, a slot he doesn't hold for long when he lands in the Chief Executive's chair. He goes after the Iranians and then tries to piece together the country and his life the only way he knows how--with a fury that we've grown accustomed to in Clancy's intricate, detailed, and accurate stories of warfare and intrigue.

Clancy wrote Debt of Honor, at the end of which this eerily 9/11-esque suicide national decapitation strike takes place, in 1994.  That's what understandably grabbed my attention, though I opted for EO instead because I wanted to see the scope and breadth of the aftermath.

As the nation tries to recover from the shock of having its entire government wiped out (except for bewildered new president Jack Ryan, of course, whose survival is sufficiently miraculous that it's better to just accept it as a given and move on), the Iranians decide to take advantage of the situation.  First they conquer Iraq (by assassinating Saddam Hussein, but the strategic ambition is nonetheless also unmistakably similar) with the additional objective of using the combined Iranian-Iraqi "Army of God" to overrun Saudi Arabia and hold the economies of the West hostage by seizing control of half or more of the world's oil supplies.  In order to keep the Americans from intervening, they use the fortuitous mutation of a strain of the ebola virus that has jumped from African monkeys to the local human population to devise a biological weapon which they promptly use to attack the United States.

That came instantly to my mind when I stumbled across this story:

Hundreds of endangered monkeys are being taken from the African bush and sent to a “secretive” laboratory in Iran for scientific experiments.

An undercover inquiry by the Sunday Times has revealed that wild monkeys, which are banned from experiments in Britain, are being freely supplied in large numbers to laboratories in other parts of the world. All will undergo invasive and maybe painful experiments leading ultimately to their death.

One Tanzanian dealer, Nazir Manji, who runs African Primates, an animal-supplying company based in Dar es Salaam, said that in recent years he had been selling up to 4,000 vervet monkeys a year to laboratories, charging about £60 each.... 

Manji said scientists at the Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute in Iran had bought 215 vervet monkeys from him this year but he had become suspicious about their true motive, although he was still trading with them. They had “spent a lot of money” on getting the monkeys, even sending over scientists to check on each consignment.

“Iran is very secretive,” said Manji, who has been exporting monkeys for 22 years. “They said it [the monkeys] was for ‘our country’, for vaccine. [They said] ‘We don’t buy vaccine from anywhere; we prepare our own vaccine’.

“But I think they use it for something else. You know why? Because they don’t go on kilos. Iran wants [monkeys weighing] 1.5kg to 2.5kg, [but] 1.5kg for vaccine is not possible.”

Rubibira indicated that finding out what the Iranians wanted the monkeys for would be difficult. “They cannot say, you know. They are secretive. They wouldn’t tell the truth.”

The revelation will fuel speculation that the monkeys may be used for research involving biological weapons. Primates are typically used by scientists wishing to test both the effectiveness of germ warfare agents and defences against them.

The Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, which has its headquarters in Karaj, near Tehran, has been accused in the past by an Iranian opposition group of conducting biological weapons testing.

According to US intelligence, the pharmaceutical industry in Iran has long been used as a cover for developing a germ warfare capability.

In 2005 the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence said Iran “continued to seek dual-use biotechnology materials, equipment and expertise that are consistent with its growing legitimate biotechnology industry but could benefit Tehran’s assessed probable BW [biological weapons] programme”. Earlier this year it reiterated this.

The Iranian ebola attack in Executive Orders kills three thousand American civilians (another 9/11-like coincidence) but does far more disproportionate damage to the nation's economy and civilian morale through mass panic, quarantines, and the resulting limitations on transportation of food, supplies, and medicines.  These difficulties are magnified by the absence of a functioning government aside from the requisite heroic leadership of President Ryan, who morphs eventually from Admiral Stockdale clone to avenging angel when the convenient trail of metaphorical bread crumbs leads right back to Tehran, orders a surgical air strike that takes out the Iranian Supreme Leader, and delivers a "surrender immediately and unconditionally or we'll cleanse one end of your country to the other with holy nuclear fire" ultimatum.  This after effortlessly wiping the "Army of God" off the map with a conventional force a fraction of its size.

Doesn't require a great deal of credulity to intuit the mullahgarchy seeking a real-life equivalent biological capability to compliment their nuclear ambitions.  One can easily see them nuking Israel but opting for cold plague against us.  Far less obvious, far less spectacular, far less traceable, and far more strategically debilitating - particularly if the president calling the shots is (nick)named "Hussein," who would be paralyzed from the git-go and allow the country to grind to a halt and inexorably disintegrate.  And, subsequently, who knows?  Maybe they would follow that up with a nuclear attack to finish the job the ebola (or whatever) started.

To me it simply redundantly underscores the critical necessity of invading Iran and crushing the Islamic regime while that goal can still be attained conventionally, and before the mullahs can seize the strategic initiative for themselves with weapons not so conventional.  The "madness" has always been procrastinating in favor of time-wasting diplomatic futility, not decisive action in advance of a far more awful alternative.

Alas, history is repeating itself, as the twenty-first century Neville Chamberlains and Lord Halifaxes and Eduard Daladiers cringe their countries into an atomic conflagration that could be so easily averted.  Only this time, instead of a Winston Churchill, or God help us, a Jack Ryan to lead us out of the wilderness, we'll be stuck with Barack Obama to dig our graves.

At least, though, the government will pay for the shovels - right?

Is this yet another wearisome exercise of criminal strategic negligence or an act of diplomatic hypnotism?:

The U.S. ambassador to Israel played down speculation on Thursday that an attack by either country on Iranian nuclear sites was imminent, saying the allies agreed sanctions should run their course.

"I don't think any decisions have been made on any military action by any party, that I'm aware of," Richard Jones told reporters.

"I think a lot of people believe that the use of military force would be the last option and there are plenty of other options that need to be exercised beforehand -- and I think we are in the process of exercising those options," he said.

"We are working very closely with Israel on our diplomatic efforts."

U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday reiterated his Administration's support for giving diplomatic pressure on Tehran a chance to work, but said "all options are on the table". [emphases added]

Well, ya gotta admit, if something that might actually prevent the Iranians from getting nukes IS in the works, 'tis unlikely that any diplomat would be included in that loop.  And even if Ambassador Jones was in that know, he would doubtless be instructed to continue to bloviate precisely such reassurances, perhaps in concert with the disinformation that the mullahgarchy is accusing us of spreading to camouflage an attack on its nuclear installations that may or may not be "imminent."

I suppose the only reason I continue to harbor any such hopes is because of my inability to believe that President Bush can seriously believe himself that if five fricking years of "diplomatic pressure" hasn't budged Tehran away from its nuclear ambitions, a few weeks or months more will somehow magically do the trick.  Unlike his indefatigueable detractors, Dubya is incapable of that sheer magnitude of foolishness.

At least, I hope and pray he is.  Sticking with this idiocy for five fricking years is itself something less than a robust confidence-builder.

Either way, he's just about run out of time to keep his promise of denying Iran nuclear weapons.  Leaving that task to a seditious moron who will never carry it out is a legacy of infamy he should not deserve.  The next four months will determined whether he will.

And just what are we to make of this?:

Iran's foreign minister told NBC Nightly News Wednesday that the United States has "exponentially" stepped up its "psychological warfare" against Iran.

The foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told NBC's Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel that the U.S. has been feeding Iranian sources with false claims that an attack is "imminent." He said such information has been complete with plans, maps, and even dates of attacks that never take place.

Mottaki said in the past "month or two this propaganda has increased exponentially."

The first question, I suppose, is is this claim true?  The mullahs know, just as every U.S. enemy has known ever since General Giap pronounced it, that the most effective way to defeat the Americans is in the streets, and on the airwaves, of their own country.  The Bush Administration continues to insist that it wants a diplomatic solution to the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, though they also maintain that "all options are on the table."  Tehran sending its chief diplomat to tell the friendly American media what its itching ears want to hear about the Bushkin "warmongers" plotting their long-planned attack on the "peace-loving" mullahgarchy is itself a very effective psychological warfare ploy.

For this reason I tend to think Mottaki's claim is BS, designed to douse any possibility there might be of a U.S. strike and deter the Israelis from launching one of their own.

I hope and pray I'm wrong.  I don't see much psychological value to feeding the mullahs a barrage of bluffs - sooner or later they lose their effectiveness, and they already hold us in contempt as it is - but there is tactical value in sewing confusion about the who, how, and when of an attack, if not the where.  It's difficult to remain at full alert indefinitely.  The temptation to relax, and the likelihood of getting careless and making mistakes, multiplies exponentially as time goes on.  Fatigue becomes the attackers' ally as it inexorably erodes vigilence.  And when the attack does come, the fulfillment of the original bluff is almost its own misdirection.

Perhaps we're lending "psychological" support to an eventual Israeli assault.  But take note of Mottaki's warning:

In an ominous tone, he said Tehran would not show any distinction between an attack by Israel and the U.S., suggesting both will be targets of retribution by Iran.

Could we be using an Israeli attack as bait for a strategic trap the mullahs will be unable to escape?  After all, retaliation against us would constitute shooting first on their part.  Actually, the first shot was taken when they seized our embassy thirty years ago, and when Hezbollah blew up 241 of our Marines in Beirut twenty-five years ago, and when they blew up the Khobar Towers twelve years ago, and the proxy war they've been waging against us in Iraq over the past five years, but you get the idea.  Point being, military engagement on our part would constitute response and self-defense, not "pre-emption."

Yeah, and tomorrow I'm going to start pooping IPods.  But if there's any possibility of something concrete being done to avert the nightmare spectre of a nuclear-armed Iran, it better have like dispatch.  That particular window of opportunity has, at most, only four months of life left to it before it, and the fate of America, the West, and Israel, slam shut permanently.