An Israeli Defense Minister and former Israeli Mossad agent who is now a "security consultant" were both in the news today, and both continue Israel's under the radar war drum beating campaign in the international media. First up Erud Barak:

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says Israel is determined to use 'any option' to stop Iran's nuclear program should sanctions fail.

In a Wednesday interview with Al Jazeera television, Barak said while there is still time for diplomatic measures against Iran's nuclear program, other countries should not remove 'any option' from the table, an allusion to the military option. [...]

"The time is still for diplomacy and sanctions, but much more effective sanctions. We keep saying that we do not remove any option from the table. I propose to others not to remove any option from the table as well. But when we say it, we mean it," Barak said.

According to Pentagon officials, Israel conducted a military maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in early June in preparation for a war on Iran.

Far more specific was Juval Aviv a former Mossad agent whose claim that he led a team to track down and assassinate the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the slaughter of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich was made into a Steven Spielberg movie. Now the head of an independent security firm based in New York, he was presented to various groups of Australian officials by independent Jewish organizations this week to publicly claim that Israel is already set on launching attacks against 3 out of 12 possible nuclear sites in Iran before Bush leaves office:

Among many bald statements, one stuck out: Israel is now ready to destroy three or four nuclear sites out of 12 in Iran.

"I believe that Israel is planning to act on these reactors before Bush leaves the White House," Mr Aviv said. "We've got to take a chance … the next president of America may not allow it." [...]

He may or may not be speaking for anyone but himself, but his sponsorship suggests Australian opinion-makers were being warmed up for an Iran strike. If so, it's an unsatisfactory level of discussion, and surely cannot reflect policy debate in a nation as sophisticated as Israel.

Bluster? Cheap talk? I don't know. But frightening all the same. And the current French President, Nicolas Sarkozy is doing his best to ramp up the warmongering talk, as well.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned Iran yesterday it was taking a dangerous gamble in seeking to develop nuclear weapons because one day its archfoe Israel could strike. [...]

"Iran is taking a major risk in continuing the process to obtain a military nuclear capacity," Sarkozy said at a meeting in Damascus with the leaders of Syria, Turkey and Qatar.

"One day, whatever the Israeli government, we could find one morning that Israel has struck," Sarkozy added.

"The question is not whether it would be legitimate, whether it would be intelligent. What will we do at that moment? It would be a catastrophe. We must avoid that catastrophe," Sarkozy said in comments broadcast on television.

Dangerous words to be bantering about for public discusssion. And frankly I don't see Iran's leaders backing down. Such talk only enhances their domestic political situation, since it deflects discussion of their poor economic performance with the threat of war and the generation of patriotic feelings among the Iranian populace, feelings which always seem to benefit the government in power. The longer these threats and counter-threats continue, the more likely, it seems to me, that Israel and the Bush administration will feel compelled to act, especially if Obama maintains a lead in the polls. Chance of any media in the United States actually reporting these allegations to the American public during an election campaign. Virtually nil. But it should be a topic on the front burner. At the very least, any Israeli strike on Iran will send oil prices into the stratosphere, likely triggering a global economic meltdown. Before we reach that point, I'd like to think that cooler heads will prevail. But this is the Bush administration we are talking about.

It's time for prominent Democrats to speak up against any attack on Iran. Which means Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid (and maybe both Clintons, as well). Past time actually. Unfortunately, Obama's performance in his interview with O'Reilly doesn't give me a lot of comfort.

(cont.)

According to the AP, Sarah Palin attended 5 colleges and universities in 6 years before graduating with a journalism degree. In order, the educational institutions which can claim her as an alum are: University of Hawaii at Hilo (for 2 to 3 weeks; it's not clear she ever actually enrolled there); Hawaii Pacific University in Honolulu (one semester); North Idaho College (a 2 year school) for two semesters; University of Idaho, for one year; Matanuska-Susitna College in Palmer, Alaska (1 semester); and lastly back to the University of Idaho for 3 semesters before graduating.

For comparison, here's Obama's post high school education:

After high school, Obama studied at Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years. He then transferred to Columbia University in New York, graduating in 1983 with a degree in political science. [...]

Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. In February 1990, he was elected the first African–American editor of the Harvard Law Review. Obama graduated magna cum laude in 1991.

In the years between graduating from Columbia and entering Harvard Law, Obama was a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago. Upon graduating from Harvard Law Obama worked as a civil rights lawyer and taught classes at the University of Chicago Law School. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, never worked at any newspaper as a journalist. Reportedly she served a short stint as "sportscaster for KTUU in Anchorage" after graduation. Make of that what you will.

Update [2008-9-5 11:38:55 by Steven D]: For those who think we should avoid comparisons with Palin and Obama, and focus on McCain, here is my answer. Showing how poorly qualified Palin is compared to Obama is an attack on McCain. McCain has been touting his judgment, his experience, and his devotion to serving his country. Yet in his most important decision to date as his Party's nominee, what did he do? He chose the least qualified person imaginable as his Vice President, a person one heart attack or stroke (or whatever) away from being our Nation's most powerful office holder, for reasons of political expediency (i.e., to shore up his support among the radical right wing of his party). He had the Council For National Policy (a vehicle for enhancing the power of the Radical Right within the Republican Party) vet her and sign off on her selection as his running mate, for Christ's sake!

What did we like best about Obama's speech at the DNC? That he went after the Republicans and McCain hard for his lack of judgment, his impulsiveness and his poor temperament. Well, what better way to attack McCain than to attack his poor decision making in choosing Palin as his Veep? And how do we show McCain used poor judgment and acted impulsively, hastily, without due consideration for the good of the country? In large part by showing that he chose a person who isn't fit to be President.

Dear Puppet Ruler Prime Minister of Iraq: Join the club. The club of what, you ask? The club of people whom BushCo, Inc. has been focusing its all seeing eye upon. You see, Bush may have helped install you in office, and Bush may claim to be your bestest best friend, and he helped you ethnically cleanse Baghdad, and beat up on your major Shi'ite rival. Muqtada al-Sadr, but he still doesn't trust you with all his Iraq's oil:

(cont.)

I would like to know this, this morning :

How many people actually watched John McCain's speech last night?

I didn't. As soon as the NFL football game on NBC was over and Brian Williams' misshapen head popped into view, I changed the channel to ESPN to catch the second half of a fairly decent college football game. I had no desire to watch John McCain reading from a teleprompter, much less for the instant analysis from the talking heads which followed. I commend BooMan for his due diligence, but I had no desire for, and little interest in, whatever McCain might say. So who here had the television turned to Johnny Mac, and who did not? Fess up.

Having read BooMan's story about Huckabee's speech last night, I decided to post a comment. However, what started out as a short statement turned into something a bit longer than I originally intended. So I decided to post it to the front page instead.

The point Huckabee was making last night at the Republican convention, as I understand it, was that no one in this country has any inherent rights or freedoms except to the extent that we have been given those freedoms by the men and women who serve in our military. People like John McCain, for example. Well, I'm writing this now to tell Mike Huckabee he couldn't be more wrong.

No one earned the rights you or I possess as Americans. They were granted to us by a legal document, a compact if you will, by and among various sovereign states. That document is called The Constitution of the United States of America, and under its provisions all of us are granted certain freedoms, certain rights and liberties, as a matter of law. The armed forces of this country may be employed to defend the lives and property of the people of this country, and the people who serve in the military have my greatest respect, especially those who died or suffered as a result of their service. But their actions, whether in peace or wartime, did not earn my freedom for me.

John McCain fought, killed people and suffered as a POW in the Vietnam war. That was a war that had little if anything to do with fighting for my freedom or the freedom of anyone else, including the South Vietnamese people, many of whom died as a result of our military intervention in their country. If the South Vietnamese government had survived, and defeated the North Vietnamese military it would not have been a democracy. It would have been controlled by a military junta or a dictator. It might have eventually turned into a democratic government similar to that of South Korea, or on the other hand evolved into a repressive one like Singapore. No one can say. At present Vietnam is much like China, a capitalist economy with a government controlled by an ostensibly Communist party. So McCain's efforts amounted to little in the grand scheme of things. They certainly didn't help me. This is not to dishonor the service he gave to our country, nor the suffering he endured as a POW, but that service and his suffering was not ipso facto undertaken to preserve American freedoms and liberties, mine or yours.

What did happen during that war, while Senator McCain was a captive of the North Vietnamese, was an assault on our collective freedom back in the USA by our own government. Google "Cointelpro" and the "Church Committee" for the details. Or look up the history of the Watergate scandal that brought down the Nixon White House. So, McCain, despite his service in the military, didn't earn my freedom or yours. He did what most soldiers do: he followed orders, and carried out the policy of the civilian leaders of our government, policies we now know were terribly misguided and arguably, in some instances, war crimes.

What earns us our freedom isn't anyone's service in the military, laudatory as that may be. It's our constant attention to insisting, demanding and fighting to preserve those rights granted to all of us under the Constitution. That's what the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's fought for, and what the Feminist movement has fought for, and the Gay Liberation movement has fought for, and Unions have fought for, and the ACLU has fought for. That's what even the NRA (an organization of which I do not approve) has fought for: a right it believes citizens are entitled to under the 2nd amendment to the constitution -- the right to own a gun.

And every time someone in government does something to diminish those rights, like imprisoning people without due process, or permitting the use of torture, or authorizing and excusing the illegal and warrantless surveillance of American citizens, we lose a little of our "freedoms." Every time innocent and peaceful protesters are arrested for daring to exercise their rights of free speech and assembly, or people have their homes raided by the police because they belong to a group that plans to protest, or journalists are arrested for covering those protests, our rights are infringed upon by the government. Yet that has what has been happening at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, presumably with the implicit or express approval of John McCain and the Republican party.

So, don't tell me that John McCain gave me my freedom as a gift, or that he earned it on my behalf. He didn't. Indeed, his actions as a serving Senator have lately done much to limit my rights. It is only by exercising my freedoms, and standing up for the rights of others, that I have any chance of retaining them. In other words, only when we, you and I, "the people," stand up collectively for our constitutional rights, even the constitutional rights of people with whom we disagree, or whose views or actions we find offensive, even the rights of people who are charged with crimes or who are not American citizens, can we say we have done something on behalf of our freedoms.

I don't mean for my words here to dishonor anyone who serves, or served, in the military, but that service means nothing if we allow the excuse of wars fought by our Armed forces overseas, or the presence of enemies, foreign or domestic, to limit the rights to which we are entitled, and to which we became entitled at birth. Under the Bush administration that is what too many Americans, in and out of government, have done. Stood by while our liberties were thrown down in the mud and stomped on.

Many of them are attending the Republican Convention as we speak. Many of them would consider my statements here on this blog to be traitorous and un-American. Many of them have no problem with repressing free speech, if it is speech with which they disagree. Many of them have no problem with torture by our government so long as they are not the one being tortured. Many of them don't care that our government is spying on us and them, and compiling vast data bases of information about its citizens, an invasion of privacy on a scale unprecedented in our history. Many of them may even have worn wore those infamous "purple bandaids," which openly mocked the physical courage demonstrated by Senator John Kerry during his military service in Vietnam, at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Well, they were hypocrites then and they are hypocrites now. And in the words of Thomas Jefferson, they are dead wrong about who earned us our liberty:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

After last night we now know what the major and minor themes of this campaign will be. Not that it was totally unexpected but the Republican trump cards will be the same ones they've employed throughout their last 8 years of power: fear and hate.

Hatred of liberals. Hatred of government. Hatred of Black People. Hatred of Latinos. Hatred of gays, lesbians and transsexuals. Hatred of the media. Hatred of "elites" (i.e., people who went to Ivy League schools, university professors, blah, blah, blah). Hatred of unions. Sarah Palin's speech was simply stuffed to the gills with the theme of hate, as was the speech given by Rudy Guliani. It was one long exegesis of how poor Republicans and hard working (white) Americans are being victimized by Democrats, Liberals and Minorities. The constant sarcastic references to "community organizers" was classic dog whistle politics, and dog whistle really is a poor metaphor for how their message was conveyed...because they displayed little subtlety about what they meant. The speeches and the tone in which they were given were clearly intended to express disdain and hatred for all things liberal, progressive and Democratic.

It was also clearly intended to convey a racist message: Don't vote for the black guy, fellow white people. He isn't one of us, he doesn't share "our "Christian" values. He's an affirmative action baby, so he isn't qualified to lead this country. He's out of touch with your concerns. He won't keep the country safe because deep down, he doesn't love it like we do. You can't trust him to keep the terrorists out. You can't trust him to keep your family safe from illegal aliens and/or criminals (i.e., scary black and brown people).

Those are the major themes. What are the minor ones? Well, they are all related to issues of personality. Obama is unqualified to be President. McCain is a hero with years of experience who knows what it takes to win the war on terror. Republicans care out life (i.e., they oppose abortion) and Democrats don't. McCain and Palin are the real reformers. Obama and Biden are the Washington game players. McCain's an authentic American. Obama is not. McCain's a regular guy. Obama is an elitist snob and a shyster. As you can see, the minor themes are designed to reinforce the major themes of the Republicans.

What is also clear is the almost total absence of any emphasis on issues. The war? Practically a non-topic. The economy? Ditto. Only in the area of Energy do the Republicans offer anything approaching a substantive policy proposal, and its been one that is hardly unfamiliar or unexpected: the claim that we can solve our energy problems and lower gas prices by drilling for more domestic oil in coastal areas and in (big surprise) ANWR. Other than that, the Republicans don't really have much to say about the issues. They continue to beat the drum for more tax cuts, less government, a bigger military, more wars, and a go it alone approach to foreign affairs. It's essentially four more (or eight more years) of the Bush administration. In other words, denial and distraction from the important issues which concern most people.

I don't know if their divisive political tactics, emphasizing personal attacks and extreme partisanship will win again this year for McCain like they did for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I think their strategy is to try to keep the election close (within a margin of no more than 5% nationally), suppress the hell out of the African American and Latino vote in key states like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, etc. and hope to squeeze out a narrow electoral victory in November. It's a classic Rove campaign. Fire up the base. Demonize your opponent with smears and lies. Get out your vote and keep your opponents from voting. It worked in 2000 because Gore ran a terrible campaign and the media played into Bush's hands, repeating GOP talking points with little or no fact checking. It worked in 2004 because Kerry ran a poor campaign and fear was still enough of a motivation to make people reluctant to pull the lever for a Democrat, even if he was a war hero.

It didn't work in 2006, however, in the Congressional elections. People were fed up with the direction of the country, with the economy, with the war, and they blamed Republcans for that. I think they will continue to blame Republicans for the current economic mess we find ourselves in. I expect the Democrats to hold onto their majorities in the House and Senate regardless of how the Presidential election goes.

So it will all come down to this in the end: will enough white people vote for the black man running for President? Will enough of them overcome the implied message of bigotry, negative stereotypes, and fear of the other which the Republicans will push to vote for a biracial man who offers as his major campaign themes hope and change? We'll find out in about eight weeks.

Don't you ever wonder to yourself how a multimillionaire media celebrity like Tom Brokaw knows the hearts and minds of poor, downtrodden "working class" waitresses in places like Norfolk, Nebraska so well. I mean, it simply astounds me the depth and breadth of his intimate knowledge regarding their lives, and the emotions they likely felt last night for a reasonably well off Republican Vice Presidential candidate. I wish I could have his all powerful mind reading skills when it comes to persons of the female gender, if only for one day.

* To the extent anyone can have a deep thought this early in the morning.

What do Republican Talking Heads really think about the Palin pick? Well, Peggy Noonan (h/t to our own Drew J Jones ) tells us that Palin was not the most qualified woman as McCain's veep pick: "Most qualified? No. I think they went for the -- excuse me -- political bullshit about narrative." Take a listen to this conversation between Noonan and Mike Murphy during a commercial break on MsNBC today. It's about 50 seconds into the video:

Nonetheless you won't get many, if any GOP sources to go on the record complaining about McCain's choice about Palin. They are all in lockdown mode, loudly proclaiming that they are foursquare behind Johnny Mac's decision whenever a reporter wanders by. But in their heart of hearts? Well, you heard the evidence from two of the conservatives most diligent water carriers yourself. They think Palin doesn't belong on the ticket.

Hell, maybe I'm wrong and Booman is right. Maybe the GOP powers that be will hold an intervention and convince McCain to dump her. I don't think he'll back down even if they do, but then I never thought I'd see him playing footsie with Karl Rove and showing George Bush (on camera) some of that classic Republican man love.

Update [2008-9-3 17:16:37 by BooMan]: Rough transcript:

Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state government work. Engler, Whitman, Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. And these guys, this is all how you want to (inaudible) this race. You know, just run it up. And it's not gonna work.

Noonan: It's over.

Murphy: Still, McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

Noonan: I saw Kay this morning

Murphy: They're all bummed out. I mean, is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

Noonan: The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives and (inaudible) the picture.

Murphy: Yeah, but what's the narrative?

Noonan: Every time the Republicans do that because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at and they blow it.

Murphy: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism and this is cynical.

Update [2008-9-3 10:56:19 by Steven D]: Update below the fold.

Sarah Palin believes that the Iraq War and the $30 billion construction of a gas pipeline that she supports is all part of God's plan, which she asks her (now technically former since she moved to Juneau) church's congregation to pray for back in June of this year. Here she is in her own words and voice spelling out the details:

(Part 2 of the video is cont. below the fold.)

Same as the old plan:

President Bush said yesterday that the relatively little damage suffered by oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico because of Hurricane Gustav should prod Congress to open more coastal areas to offshore oil drilling, sounding a political note in the wake of the storm.

Bush, who plans to travel to Louisiana today, said there were "encouraging signs" that Gustav did not cause significant harm to the oil fields along the Gulf Coast. But he said the storm's impact on oil supplies and energy markets underscores the need for expanded offshore exploration.

"When Congress comes back, they've got to understand that we need more domestic energy, not less," Bush said before a morning meeting with senior aides to assess Gustav's damage to energy supplies. "One place to find it is offshore America, lands that have been taken off the books, so to speak, by congressional law."

Hurricanes? That means we must drill for more offshore oil. And we should probably lease those areas to Big Oil free of charge. And give them a tax cut or government funding or something to help them out building new oil platforms in areas subject to hurricanes. Conservation? Energy efficiency. T. Boone Pickens vaunted windmills? Solar power? All worthless. We need more O-I-L! And if we just let Big Oil do whatever they want it will magically reduce the price of gas, restore our economy to prominence and increase the sex drive of every man over the age of 35, while simultaneously reducing the risk of breast cancer. But more importantly, it will make John McCain and George Bush happy. And when they're happy we're happy. Right?

Hey, makes sense to me.

Ps. We should also do this because John McCain was a POW.

Pps. And anyone who opposes this plan is just being mean to Sarah Palin.

Ppps. Want to start a pool on how quickly Democrats fold on this one?

It's The Joe and Dubya show at the RNC tonight (with a side order of Laura Bush). George the Second on the Jumbotron via video conference at The White House and Lieberman in person at the podium. Not to mention Grandpa Fred "Law&Order" Thompson. What better reason to watch something else is there?

Tasers are the most wonderful tool imaginable for law enforcement. Have a mentally ill man in custody who wants to catch his breath because he's tired? We can't have that! Taser him a couple of times and after that I'm sure he'll straighten up and fly right.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — Broward County deputies shocked a mentally ill inmate with Tasers in court after the man asked deputies for a few minutes to catch his breath before he was led from the courtroom.

Assistant Public Defender Anne LeMaster said deputies told 22-year-old inmate David Jones it was time to go Friday. When he resisted, they shocked him twice. Jones had just been found mentally incapable to stand trial and was ordered transferred to a state mental hospital.

The public defender's office says the deputies used excessive force and filed a complaint with the Broward Sheriff's Office.

Jones was handcuffed and shackled.

So, a handcuffed and shackled individual, tired, confused, perhaps disoriented, and found unfit to stand trial got a little unscheduled electroshock treatment from two Broward County Deputy Sheriffs? Are we surprised? Of course not. Are we concerned? Only if we care about human rights. Otherwise, we're conservatives and confederate heritage supporters who think the bastard got what was coming to him (from the comments to the article):

I say the crminal probably got what he had coming. If he was "mentally incapable to stand trial" as this limp-wristed judge decided, then he probably did something really bad and got out of it by being sent to a hospital instead of a cell where he belonged. I'm tired of criminals getting out of their punishments by being labeled as mentally incapable--whatever the hell that means. They always seem to have the sense to do the crime but get out of it by not allegedly being culpable. Well maybe that little bit of shock therapy will help him along. I hope he hit his head on something on the way to the floor.

America. Love it or get tasered. Multiple times.