Obama Encourages Israel to Attack Iran

A day after Obama gave a "pandering" speech to AIPAC, according to the Washington Post, Israel announced that an attack on Iran appeared unavoidable, according to Reuters. One of the most important things Obama said was that Jerusalem should remain the capital of Israel and be undivided. This is a declaration that, if serious, probably makes moot (and impossible) future negotiations on peace in the Middle East. Jerusalem is a war spoil not granted to Israel by the UN, and if the Arabs have no part in Jerusalem, it's unlikely they'll negotiate about how to divide up the West Bank and Gaza.

Col. Patrick Lang points out regarding Hillary's pandering speech that some of her hawkish campaign advisers, who probably lost her the primary by advising her to vote for pro-Israeli positions versus Iraq and Iraq, were probably sitting in the audience at AIPAC. On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart made fun of all of the candidates, particularly excoriating McCain for bragging that he took Sen. Joe Lieberman to Israel. Stewart said that you don't need to take your own Jew to Israel; there are already plenty there. Helena Cobban points out that the LA Times missed one of Obama's most significant statements by confusing what he said about Jerusalem.

My only hope is that Obama was not entirely sincere when he spoke to AIPAC. He had appear strong, because as he said at the beginning of his speech, the Jewish community suspects him of being a (closet?) Muslim and weak on Israel. If he gets to be President, he can always say that the situation has changed since he spoke to AIPAC, but will he?

Senate Seconds Scott McClellan

The Senate Intelligence Committee has issued a report basically reiterating what Scott McClellan says in his new book, What Happened, according to the Washington Post. The report says that Bush inflated the threat posed to the US by Iraq's supposed WMD. Did he give them the courage finally to issue their report? Is anybody surprised? Why isn't somebody -- Bush or Cheney, for example -- in trouble?

Obama Driven from Church

Barack Obama's having to leave his church is a bad sign for religious freedom in the US. People should be free to attend the church of their choice. Obama is a special case because he is running for president, but not that special. Admittedly, the US is not like the old Soviet Union where people were persecuted for going to church, or like a country that has an established religion connected to the government, like the situation that drove the Pilgrims and the Puritans to the US centuries ago, or like the Nazi persecution of the Jews, although that was more racial than religious.

What Obama's experience shows is that you have to be a member of a pretty bland, mainstream, widely accepted church if you don't want to be persecuted for your religion. While Obama's pastor may have been controversial, the United Church of Christ is not. And most recently, Obama was criticized because of what a visiting Roman Catholic priest said in his church. America says, "Don't you dare try to listen to other points of views. Don't you dare try to understand other religions. We'll crucify you."

It's hard to tell how much this religious hatred emanated from the Clinton campaign, how much from Republicans and their proxies like Fox News, how much from the evangelical right, and how much from news media that just wanted a story. But the end result was that Obama was not free to attend the church of his choice, and that's sad for America.

Israel Rejects Bush's Advice

The NYT rightly points out that Israel rejected Bush's advice directed at Obama not to negotiate with regimes you don't like, although it gave him time to get out of the country before Israel's talks with Syria became public. It just makes Bush and the neocons look like idiots. And they endanger the US in the process.