Look! Look! Those North Koreans are threatening our freedoms!

Someone in the media (Amanpour) is actually asking the right questions; is the US provoking a crisis with North Korea, with Syria as the excuse.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/25/syria.nuclear.amanpour/index.html

I’m sure some policy "realists" and liberal hawks might think that any pressure on North Korea is good. And the necons of course think it is the sworn duty of the US to police everyone’s’ (except the US and Israel) nuclear ambitions.

But two things: 1) we are no longer in control and 2) we lack the moral credibility of a slug to tell very many to do anything.

Can we imply from the timing that this is the beginning of the next “crisis”, the one necessary to have before the election?

How many day/ months/ before Israel takes out an Iranian installation, and the Cheney gang retaliates to the inevitable Iranian response? While St John sings “Bomb, bomb Iran” as loudly as he can; Hillary’s wet dream of “obliterating” Iran comes true with her enthusiastic backing; and Obama just goes along for the ride and not to ruffle AIPAC.

Wake up Congress! Instead of hosting this charade, attend to the real issues facing this nation. But no. Tough times demand distracting the American people with ginned up foreign crises.

We get the government we deserve. Hard to believe, but true, that Americans have sunk so low as to allow what we’ve got now.

Hasn't the U.S. had enough war in the Mideast?

Listening to “To The Point” on radio driving home this evening, the topic was the Middle East and the recent Obama-Clinton ‘debate’, with surrogates Ann Lewis for Hillary and ex-AIPAC guy Mel Levine for Obama.

Host Warren Olney (sic) prodded them about which one had, essentially, split more hairs than the other. They each recited their principals major sound bites, with Lewis sounding a bit more defensive, e.g., stating, oh no, Hillary did not mean to imply by threatening “massive retaliation” on Iran for an attack on Israel or any other state under our umbrellas of good guys, that she was implying use of nuclear weapons.

Levine, for his part, said Obama was being “presidential” in saying there would be an “appropriate response” for any attack on Israel, our closest ally in the region. So, both of the candidate’s surrogates have, blithely and apparently proudly, thrown around assurances of their respective candidates intentions to come to the defense of Israel in the case of attack. In one case, with massive retaliation. In the other case with an, clearly implied, appropriate military response.
In both cases there is the assumption of apparent impunity in suggesting inevitable U.S. military response, even in the absence of any formal treaty arrangements with Israel (much less any other ME states under some fictitious U.S. umbrella).

This is the sort of reckless promised military force by the U.S. that used to be avoided up until now. At best, it was previously an implied threat but we all knew there was no such defense pact in place. Now, by these current Senators, who should know better, assurances are given regardless of the legal niceties and the absence of any formal treaty.

Finally, Warren Olney failed to ascertain, or even ask, if the “attack” on Israel that would trigger these responses by the candidates/Presidents (varying only in their intensity but not their certainty), would be occasioned by a – shall we say ‘unilateral' attack on Israel by Iran – or would a U.S. attack be similarly unleashed on Iran in response to a provocation from an Israeli attack.

Where are the media that will address this shameful bastardization of American foreign policy and foreign policy law and principle?

Is it the shape of things to come thatfar from bring some sanity to the ME, either Obama or Clinton, not to mention McMcain are laying the ground work for another executive-motivated premptive war?

Details. Shame on them all.