Just a few random thoughts on last night's U.S. presidential debate between Crackbrain McNasty and B. Slippery Obama...

In general, discouraging and depressing with respect to content and attitude. I do not mean their attitude toward each other. Who cares? I mean the attitude of both men with respect to America and its place in the world. It is presumptuous and arrogant. Both project that "indispensable nation" attitude left over from the Cold War. It is hubris. It is beyond a love of country, a healthy patriotism. You might think that the older man would have learned something and would know better. He knows next to nothing beyond his own arrogance and small mind. I am beginning to regard Obama as simply young and inexperienced, albeit a lot smarter and more articulate than the other guy. 

Among their more intelligent, informed and honest supporters, there must be some embarrassment and unease at the obvious inadequacies of both candidates. One glaring intellectual dishonesty which both men share is their congruent positions with respect to Iran. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus...

They continue to act and talk as if Iran were a legitimate threat to America and the world. They pretend to believe, or actually believe, that Iran is working on developing an atomic bomb which it plans to use. (If they actually believe it, then they are idiots.) This posture is taken for granted. It is a given. It is the premise of their remarks. This, even though (1) the U.S. intelligence community has issued a white paper which declares that Iran is not working on building atomic weapons and (2) the IAEA has repeatedly stated that it has no indication that Iran is working on such a project and (3) the Iranian chief of state, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued in 2005 a Fatwa against Iran producing and stockpiling nuclear weapons. 

Just recently, both Iran's foreign minister and its president were in New York for the annual UN meeting. Ahmadinejad was interviewed on the Larry King show. Mottaki, the foreign minister, was on the Charlie Rose show. Both were quite reasonable and emphatic that Iran was not working on developing nuclear weapons, had no intention of doing so, and that on principle Iran was opposed to nuclear weapons for religious and tactical reasons. 

Why does this remind me of statements in 2002 by Iraq's former foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, and its UN Ambassador Aldouri, that Iraq possessed no WMD? Why? Because we are witnessing the same scenario. Washington's policy is regime change in Tehran. Washington's obsession over Tehran's non-existent atomic weapons project is a front, a diversion, an excuse to create mischief. It is predicated almost entirely on politicians in Washington wanting to curry favor with the Israel Lobby.

The obsessive behavior of the two candidates has little to do with foreign policy and everything to do with American domestic politics, rooted in the unspoken reality that the "Israel Lobby" is calling the tune, and both American political parties are dancing to it, no matter what.  This is an unhealthy situation. It forces both candidates to live in a make-believe, dangerous world, in which they accept false premises, which premises remain unassailable and sacrosanct. 

I had to laugh when Obama talked about Iran's need to import gasoline, because Iran lacked sufficient capacity to refine its own oil. How could such a country be a legitimate threat to the U.S.? Obama was urging more comprehensive sanctions by the "international community" to cut off gasoline imports to Iran, as a means to dissuade Iran from making the bomb. It is just daffy.

Irrespective of whether or not Obama actually believes this fawlderal, he has to say it and try to outdo McCain in the Iran-bashing department--if he hopes to get elected. It is what the "Israel Lobby" and most Jewish voters want to hear, and Obama knows that as does McCain.

Let’s be rational. If Iran needs to import gasoline for its energy needs, then does it not make sense that Iran would seek to develop nuclear energy? Is not nuclear energy what both candidates are advocating for America as a means to reduce its dependency on oil? Once you accept false premises, it is all a waste of time. That's my point.