If you think that Barack Obama can't still pull Iraqi defeat from the jaws of George W. Bush's surge victory, says Charles Krauthammer, think again:

Iran has always been the biggest threat to liberated Iraq.  They subverted the elected Iraqi government throughout the Bush years, they supported the Shiite and, yes, Sunni insurgencies with weapons and proxie armies (the "Sadr army").  The surge squashed the latter gambit, but the former remains, and if The One truly is intent on making a "comprehensive" declaration of victory, complete with "Mission Accomplished" banner, followed by a complete pullout leaving the Iraqis twisting in the military AND political winds, guess who's waiting to move in and fill that void, along with their new Turkish satellite?

With Iraq in the bag, the mullahgarchy will effectively control contiguous territory from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean and the Bosporus, the shores of southeastern Europe.  And, with the Iranian-backed Islamist pressure mounting on autocratic Egypt, they could soon dominate the Sinai and the Suez Canal along with it, to say nothing of having Israel encircled in even greater depth than they do already.

***But Red Barry doesn't sweat any of that; after all, we've got him, and he can sweet talk any enemy into bosom friendship:

President Obama put the issue of negotiating with Iranfirmly back on the table Wednesday in an unusual White House session with journalists. His message was that even as U.N. sanctions squeeze Tehran, he is leaving open a “pathway” for a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue.

“It is very important to put before the Iranians a clear set of steps that we would consider sufficient to show that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons,” Obama said, adding: “They should know what they can say ‘yes’ to.” As in the past, he left open the possibility that the United States would accept a deal that allows Iran to maintain its civilian nuclear program, so long as Iran provides “confidence-building measures” to verify that it is not building a bomb.

The renewed opening to Iran also included a proposal for talks on Afghanistan. Obama said he favored a “separate track” for discussion of this issue, in which the two sides have a “mutual interest” in fighting the Taliban. He urged that, as part of Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s push for “reintegration” with the Taliban, Iran should be included in regional talks about stability. “Iran should be a part of that and could be a constructive partner,” he said.

Insane.  The man is utterly, completely insane.  Also delusional and crazy and nutzoid.  Iran is pursuing the very same strategy in Afghanistan - arming and otherwise using the Taliban as a proxy army - that they did in Iraq.  And now he's back to trying to put over the theocratic fascists that want to kill us all as "partners in peace" and handing them Karzai's head on a platter as an extra bonus.

And, by the way, they're never going to give up their nukes:

As Iran and world powers prepare for new nuclear talks, letters by Tehran’s envoys to top international officials and shared with The Associated Press suggest major progress is unlikely, with Tehran combative and unlikely to offer any concessions.

Two letters, both written late last month, reflect Iran’s apparent determination to continue the nuclear activities that have led to new rounds of U.N., EU, and U.S. sanctions in recent weeks over fears that Tehran might be seeking to develop nuclear arms. …

Iran insists it want to enrich uranium only to make fuel for a planned reactor network and denies accusations that it will use the program to make fissile warhead material.

But international suspicions are strong. Tehran hid its enrichment program until it was revealed from the outside. And it acknowledged constructing a secret nuclear facility last year to the International Atomic Energy Agency last year only days before its existence was publicly revealed by the U.S. and Britain.

I say it every time I address this topic, and this time is no different: Years ago we might have been able to enable the Iranian people overthrow the mullahgarchy.  That Rubicon isn't even in the rear view mirror anymore.  In 2003 we were in the perfect position to invade Iran as we did Iraq, in an all-at-the-same-time clean sweep of the "Arab Crescent" from Syria to Afghanistan, and crush the mullahs as we did Saddam Spiderhole.  The mullahs were petrified we were planning precisely that.  But we didn't, their "terror" passed, and every day since then they've become more and more convinced that we will not resist them on ANYTHING, and that they've already conquered us, with the official surrender a mere formality.

This latest "open hand" does nothing to change that estimation.  Indeed, I suspect that B.O. is "reaching out" again because of this "misunderstanding" that had more to do in any case with Iranian paranoia than any realism seeping into Lucifer's cerebellum.

***Meanwhile, the ChiComms are gaining the capability to match their ambition of driving us out of the Western Pacific:

While a nuclear bomb could theoretically sink a carrier, assuming its user was willing to raise the stakes to atomic levels, the conventionally-armed Dong Feng 21D’s uniqueness is in its ability to hit a powerfully defended moving target with pin-point precision…

“The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities,” said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. “The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose.”…

“China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back,” said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable — against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War.

Carrier-killing missiles “could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers,” he e-mailed to the AP. “It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II. The stark reality is that sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore.”

Ah, but remember, to Obamunists, who consider America (before they got power over it) to be the focus of evil in the modern world, this is a good thing.  So the "enduring psychological effect" will be pushing on an open door until at least 2013.

What will be enduring is the crippling effect on American military capabilities of the Obama megadebt, which I'll guarantee you is one of its purposes.

UPDATE (8/8): See here for an in-depth analysis of the DF-21D.  Here's J.E. Dyer's conclusion:

It’s the combination of weapons China can increasingly bring to bear that the US Navy is worried about.  If we’ve got one big, honking set of tactical constraints imposed by the Chinese submarine threat, another posed by the Chinese attack aircraft threat, and another posed by supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, adding the DF-21D as a flight-ops harassment problem makes it that much harder for our forces to keep their heads above water:  to use our weapons to actually attack the enemy, rather than just to defend ourselves. 

Funny that the ChiComms are going after naval neutralization, if not outright superiority, at the same time that the mullahs are going after nuclear weapons to actually USE them.  Throw in the Russians and Uncle Hugo down south and you could almost get the idea that the ultimate plan is to encircle US.

It'll start on a day much like this....

But have no fear, my fellow future casualties; we've got Godbama.  He's a regular Tom Beck.

The one possible consequence of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities that nobody ever seems to mention (via Newsmax Insider):

Many pundits and observers have argued that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could actually play into the hands of the hardcore Iranian regime by destroying the pro-democracy movement that threatens it.

That’s one of the possible negative repercussions of an Israeli strike on the autocratic regime led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Those observers believe an Israeli strike “could fatally compromise the pro-democracy Green Movement in Iran, which is the only hope the West has for an end to the nuclear menace by means of regime change,” former CIA agent Reuel Marc Gerecht writes in the Weekly Standard.

“This concern was expressed halfheartedly before the tumultuous Iranian elections of June 12, 2009, but it is now voiced with urgency by those who truly care about the Green Movement spawned by those elections and don’t want any American or Israeli action to harm it.”

Gerecht for one does not agree with that view, writing that an Israeli strike is more likely to “shake” the regime. “If anything can jolt the pro-democracy movement forward, contrary to the now passionately accepted conventional wisdom, an Israeli strike against the nuclear sites is it.”

Gerecht does acknowledge, however, that the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime is becoming increasingly fragile, facing opposition not only from the democracy movement but also from senior members of Iran’s clergy who are appalled by Khamenei’s abuses — including the use of rape to “pacify the political opposition.”

The regime “lives in fear of a ‘velvet revolution,’” according to Gerecht, and Khamenei’s decision to throw the disputed June 2009 election to Ahmadinejad has “compromised all future elections. He has permanently destabilized the country . . . We have a supreme leader whom millions loathe and even more distrust.”

So those who maintain that a strike by Israel would strengthen the regime’s grip on power, Gerecht states, believe that “America’s pre-eminent job should therefore be to calm the Israelis down — or, failing that, arm-twist them into inaction."

What it comes down to is just how much the Green Revolutionaries "loathe" the mullahgarchy, how much they actually want to overthrow it and replace it with a Western-style democracy, and what they're willing to do to attain that end.  If "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," it isn't unreasonable to expect that the Iranian people would make common cause with Israel in this effort, as both share the same enemy.  Heck, if the UAE is openly rooting for it, how big a stretch can it really be?

Maybe I'm starting to sound a little Ledeenish, but in a way the mullahs have been running the biggest bluff imaginable.  It's very similar to the one Adolph Hitler ran in the '30s, when Germany was still weak and no match for the British and French.  It's established historical fact that if the Western powers had ever called Hitler's bluff on the Rhineland, Anchluss, or Sudetanland crises, he would have lost face abroad and at home, and the military would have overthrown him.  But they never did, because the Brits and French never challenged him, and by the time they did draw a line in the sand, the Germans were as eager AND READY for war as their feckless foes were not.  Thus did pacifism and weakness make global war inevitable.

The Islamic regime couldn't withstand an American invasion any better than Saddam Hussein did before them (which is what renders nonsense the notion that the Green Revolution is "the only chance the West has for regime change in Iran").  But they've blustered toward getting nukes confident that the West lacked the will to stop them, and that once they had them, that same lack of will would be an endlessly exploitable resource with which they can destroy Israel, cripple the U.S., and conquer the Middle East - and beyond.

That image is what keeps the mullahgarchy entrenched and the Iranian people hopeless, convinced they are as friendless as the Jews themselves.  But if somebody finally strikes back at the regime - the Israelis if not the Americans - that image will be shattered.

Aren't times of crisis useful precisely because they make more dramatic change possible?  Are your ears burning, Barry?  If not, then maybe you have more strategically in common with our enemies in Tehran than you'd care to let on.  And that'll be why the Jews and Persians will, at least for a while, become bedfellows not all that strange after all.

UPDATE: The tide of "conventional foolishness" is turning?:

A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, said that during his tenure "a strike was way down the list of options." But he tells CNN's State of the Union that such action now "seems inexorable."

"In my personal thinking," Hayden said, "I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes."

Hayden said that the likelihood of a U.S. strike on Iran has risen in the face of Tehran's defiance to halt its contentions nuclear program, saying "We engage. They continue to move forward."

"We vote for sanctions. They continue to move forward. We try to deter, to dissuade. They continue to move forward," he added.

The former CIA chief predicted Iran, in defiance of the international community, planned to "get itself to that step right below a nuclear weapon, that permanent breakout stage, so the needle isn’t quite in the red for the international community."

Hayden said that reaching even that level would be "as destabilizing to the region as actually having a weapon."

Nice to see that after - how long has it been, FIFTEEN YEARS? - the pattern has finally penetrated...well, at least somebody who USED to be in the Beltway and is free to speak [ahem] intelligently now that he's on the outside.

But Red Barry, attacking an actual enemy of the United States?  Michelle Obama helming a backyard BBQ grill while wearing an apron that says, "Kiss me, I luv grease" would be more likely.

But....how willing is he REALLY to sacrifice a second term for The Cause?  If things get as dire for him as Peter Ferrara predicts, would a "wag the dog" scenario involving the mullahs be beyond his pulling?

This is the correct term for the Obama (and before him, Bush) Iran policy.  The ideal window of opportunity to take out the mullahgarchy and its nuclear weapons ambitions was in 2003, when the U.S. had the military, diplomatic, and geostrategic winds at its back.  Instead, President Bush squandered five years fisting his policy gherkin on one round of risibly futile "negotiations" and "sanctions" after another, with the only measurable difference between his approach and that of his mule-eared successor being his use of the Brits, French, and Germans as diplomatic cutouts.  Comrade Hussein opted for direct risibly futile negotiations, which have produced the exact same result: the acceleration of the Islamic Empire of Iran's hurtling drive for nuclear weapons.

So here was sit in the summer of 2010, with Iran almost certainly in possession of several nuclear warheads (procured and/or indigenous) and now, suddenly, it dawns on TPTB that maybe all these years of masturpacifisting have been a complete and terrifyingly dangerous waste of time?

Yes, my friends, it just might be true:

In late 2006, George W. Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon and asked if military action against Iran’s nuclear program was feasible. The unanimous answer was no. Air strikes could take out some of Iran’s nuclear facilities, but there was no way to eliminate all of them. Some of the nuclear labs were located in heavily populated areas; others were deep underground. And Iran’s ability to strike back by unconventional means, especially through its Hizballah terrorist network, was formidable. The military option was never officially taken off the table. At least, that’s what U.S. officials always said. But the emphasis was on the implausibility of a military strike. “Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in 2008. It would be “disastrous on a number of levels.”

This, of course, assumes that there won't be "another" war in the Middle East unless we initiate it.  But isn't it at least a possibility that some other power in that region might be a lot more eager than we are to launch a war of aggression, conquest, and [ahem] terror? 

Nobody wanted "peace" more than the British and French seventy-one years ago; they didn't think "another war in Europe" was "infeasible," they considered it unthinkable, so much so that they simply refused to think about it at all, choosing instead to bury themselves in the happy, comforting folds of pacifist fantasy.  But Adolph Hitler was very interested in another European war, and the foolish softheadedness of his intended victims convinced him more than anything else that he could win it.  And so the Western powers got the exact opposite of the end they sought precisely by their stupid unwillingness to do what was necessary to prevent it.

I understand what the then-Pentagon brass were saying.  In a nutshell, they didn't want to attack Iran.  Well, join the club, gentlemen.  There's a reason why war is supposed to be the last resort.  Nobody but a berserker wants war.  But sometimes war isn't a question of if, but of when and how.  And compared to seventy years ago, it's actually worse this time around. 

Hitler could have been deterred if the "Entente Cordial" had taken a tough stand against his signals of renewed aggression in 1936 when he eviscerated the Versailles Treaty by remilitarizing the Rhineland.  Instead, the West did nothing.  They could have occupied the Ruhr Valley if he annexed Austria in 1938.  Instead, the West did nothing.  Chamberlain and Daladier could have gone to Munich in September of that year with an ultimatum: moving on the Sudetenland means war.  Instead, they gave it to him.  He took the rest of Czechoslovakia within six months, and attacked Poland within the year.  The result of all those efforts to avoid war?  War, on Hitler's terms, when Germany was at its strongest.

Could the mullahs have been "disarmed" without war?  Sure - years ago.  Perhaps as late as 2003, if we'd made an all out effort to encourage and support Iranian dissident groups.  But....we never did.  And with each passing round of "negotiations" and "sanctions," we convinced Tehran all the more that they had nothing to fear from us and a Global Caliphate to gain once they had the ultimate weapon.  Hell, why do you think Ali Khamanie installed Adolph Ahmadinejad as his frontman in 2005?  That was all the telling expression of dripping contempt for us as a "superpower" the Bushies should have needed to realize that the window of opportunity for regime change without war had slammed shut.

As Ensign Ed points out, the chance for an Operation Iranian Freedom was nullified by the blatantly partisan and laughable 2007 NIE claiming that Iran abandoned nukes as the tanks were thundering into Baghdad.  To the degree that the possibility of military action against the mullahgarchy might have been holding them back, that removed all possibility of deterrence.

By this time, the game is pretty much over.  An irrational, apocalyptic, undeterrable regime of crazy theocrats who see their Second Coming, um, coming through nuclear conflagration now has nuclear weapons capability.

And NOW we get this question:

Gates is sounding more belligerent these days. “I don’t think we’re prepared to even talk about containing a nuclear Iran,” he told Fox News on June 20. “We do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons.” In fact, Gates was reflecting a new reality in the military and intelligence communities. Diplomacy and economic pressure remain the preferred means to force Iran to negotiate a nuclear deal, but there isn’t much hope that’s going to happen. “Will [sanctions] deter them from their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability?” CIA Director Leon Panetta told ABC News on June 27. “Probably not.” So the military option is very much back on the table.

What has changed? “I started to rethink this last November,” a recently retired U.S. official with extensive knowledge of the issue told me. “We offered the Iranians a really generous deal, which their negotiators accepted,” he went on, referring to the offer to exchange Iran’s 1.2 tons of low-enriched uranium (3.5% pure) for higher-enriched (20%) uranium for medical research and use. “When the leadership shot that down, I began to think, Well, we made the good-faith effort to engage. What do we do now?”

The answer is real, real simple, dumbass: You wait for the inevitable Iranian attack.  Or the inevitable desparate Israeli attempt to pre-empt it.  And hope against hope that they don't have nukes yet after all.

In short, the military option will be back on the table because you will have allowed our enemies to take that choice away from us.

Oh, and India and Pakistan are about to nuke each other as well.

Happy fisting, Barry.

Let the record show that JASmius has found at least one Muslim whose views he can wholeheartedly endorse:

The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran’s nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.

In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran’s nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country’s quest for nuclear weapons.

“I think it’s a cost-benefit analysis,” Mr. al-Otaiba said. “I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what.”

“If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,’ my answer is still the same: ‘We cannot live with a nuclearIran.’ I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E.“...

The ambassador also said that “talk of containment and deterrence really concerns me and makes me very nervous.”

He said Iran has not been deterred from supporting terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah now, when it doesn’t have a nuclear arsenal. So why, he asked rhetorically, would Iran be more cautious in its support for terrorism if it did.

“Why should I be led to believe that deterrence and containment will work?” he asked.

So say we all, your excellency.  Or should I say, "Allahu Akbar".

Nah, let's not get carried away.  But this is an astounding thing for a Muslim diplomat to say in the "Great Satan's" capital about the huge, well-armed, unhinged "neighbor" right on his tiny country's doorstep.  Why antagonize the mullahs when you can count on this U.S. administration to, at best, not lift a finger in the UAE's defense, or more likely take Iran's side against this "provocative rhetoric" that "threatens Middle East peace"?  One would think, per "international diplomatic realism," that Gulf emirates and the Saudis would be sucking up to Tehran for all they're worth (literally) in the hopes of reaching some kind of accommodation with the new nuclear power.

Well, I've always said that the closer you are to a mortal national threat, the cleaner it keeps your strategic sinuses.  Proximity removes the luxury of indulging in suicidal fantasies and wishful thinking.  The Israelis have been practitioners of such for most of their restored history in the Holy Land because they've had to be, or they wouldn't have survived their declaration of nationhood sixty-two years ago.  Now a Muslim Arab state, sharing the same existential threat that their otherwise Jewish enemies do, openly urges the exact same strategy for which the IDF is feverishly preparing.  How strange the bedfellows for whom insanity plays matchmaker.

Needless to say, Ambassador al-Otaiba is absolutely right.  It gives me a tingly feeling for JASmius Echo Syndrome to have viralled that far geographically and culturally.  And we've been treated to the spectacle of a Muslim ambassador telling Red Barry to get his tongue out of Adolph The Younger's nether orifice and do the only thing that can stop the mullahgarchy from going nuclear (assuming they haven't already, as I've long suspected).

Could THAT be why the Bushies didn't take care of business on Iran's nuclear ambitions while they had the chance?  Because their intel confirmed that the mullahs ALREADY have The Bomb and military action to "disarm" them would be answered with major megatonnage unleashed in Tel Aviv or Washington D.C.?  Was this particular arms race lost long ago?  Are we already under nuclear blackmail?  As al-Otaiba eloquently stated, the consequences of a successful pre-emptive strike would be preferable to the nightmare of a nuclear mullahgarchy.  That spectre already existing is the only rational explanation for why his advice has not been taken.

By us, that is.  The Israelis will do what they have to do, and they'll do it with support nobody could ever have imagined - many Osiraks go with them.

"US Fails to Thwart Iran’s ‘Serious Threat’ to Women’s Rights"?  Silly rabbit; women don't HAVE any rights in Iran - Barack Hussein Obama says so.  And that makes them ideally qualified to serve on the....oh, shinola, let Newsmax Insider tell the pathetic tale:

Just days after Iranian clerics attacked “immodest dress” by women and threatened suntanned women with arrest, Iran won a seat on a United Nations women’s rights commission.

The American delegation could easily have thwarted the move by raising an objection. But U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was not on hand for the vote. In fact, she wasn’t even at the U.N.

“Wouldn’t you think that a female American ambassador would understand the importance of standing up against a country that has some of the world’s most hostile laws toward women?” Richard Grenell, who served as spokesman for four U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., wrote in National Review. “Shouldn’t Rice want to use the opportunity to highlight the regime’s record on women’s rights?”

Iran has become infamous for its treatment of women. On April 19, Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi, a leading cleric in Tehran, said that immodest dress and behavior by women disturbed young men and was to blame for an increase in earthquakes.

Shortly thereafter, Tehran’s police chief, Hossein Sajedinia, warned that suntanned women will be arrested as part of a new drive to enforce the Islamic dress code, The Telegraph in Britain reported.

Then at an April 28 meeting of the U.N.’s 54-member Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Iran was nominated for a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). If the United States or any other Western country in the ECOSOC protested, a secret ballot would have been required and Iran might well have not received a majority of 28 votes.

But the United States, Canada, Australia, and ten European nations raised no objection, and Iran was therefore given the seat “by acclamation,” according to CNS News.

Beginning in 2011, Iran will help set U.N. policy on gender equality and women’s rights.

Iranian women’s rights activists sent a letter to the U.N. saying that Iranian membership in the CSW would pose a “serious threat” to the body’s “goals and mission,” and warned that the Iranian government would use it “to curtail progress and the advancement of women.”

A U.S. State Department report released in March stated that “provisions in the Islamic civil and penal codes, particularly sections dealing with family and property law, discriminate against women.” And CNS reported that members of the National Iranian American Council charged that the Iranian government “has taken every conceivable step to deter women’s progress and institute a regressive regime against gender equality.”

According to Grenell, Rice’s failure to act is not surprising. “For Rice, this silence is becoming a pattern,” he wrote. “Rice has been routinely unavailable to reporters, absent from daily U.N. meetings, and all too often silent when the American people needed a strong voice to speak out on an important issue. From Iran to Zimbabwe to Sudan to Cuba, Rice consistently stays silent.

“It’s no wonder other countries at the U.N. think the Obama administration is so easy to work with. And it also explains why we haven’t had one single Security Council resolution on Iran since Rice arrived.” [emphases added]

Remember over the past fifteen years when Republican congresses and administrations withheld our UN dues in the hopes of compelling desperately need reforms to that den of liars, thieves, oppressors, and mass murderers?  Remember how Democrats condemned such withholdings as well-nigh scandalous?  Remember how they endlessly denounced George W. Bush as a "warmongering cowboy unilateralist" for ultimately bypassing Turtle Bay on an [ahem] eighteenth Security Council Resolution ratifying the state of war that had already existed between the anti-Saddam Coalition and Iraq for the previous twelve years due to Saddam's almost immediate violation of the cease-fire terms from the first Gulf War, despite the fact that Bush squandered six months with Hans f'ing Blix and his little band of Keystone Weapons Inspector Cops in their little white clown cars with the big "UN" on the side?  Remember how John Kerry was going to "rebuild our alliances" around the world through "multilateralist" instutions like the UN?

And now Red Barry's UN ambassador hardly ever shows up?  Picture the leftwingnutter reaction if Bush hadn't bothered to name a UN ambassador.  Rinse.  Repeat.

What does this suggest?  That False Messiah thinks the UN runs just fine the way it is without an American voice and with an underwriting American blank check.  Including, you know, putting the same regime that would chop off Scheherezade's famous arms if she ever showed them on a state visit on the UN Women's Rights Commission.  Where they will, of course, lead the effort to brand Israel (and the United States) as the enemies of women all around the world.

Think the next Islamikaze attack on Manhatten will target Turtle Bay?  I don't.  Think the mullahgarchy will conquer us outright?  Bet they do.

Under this administration, could you blame them?

Well think about it, peeps.  Doesn't Frank Gaffney's statement of the obvious suggest that we have Red Barry and the Geico Caveman cast in the diametric opposite roles for which each is suited?

And, brother, is the L'il President zealously committed to denuclearizing Obamerika.  Almost as if he wants to see Israel "wiped off the map" worse than DinnerJacket does, but doesn't want the blood of millions of Jews on his own hands (or lose the votes of millions of more at home), so he's quietly letting the Iranians prepare to do it for him.

Call it....malevolent neglect:

On the bright side, this'll give him the perfect cover for declaring martial law and canceling the November elections.  Assuming he can be pulled off the links to do it.

I'm never quite sure what we on the Right see in Joe Lieberman.  He's pretty much an orthodox leftist as to domestic policy.  Yeah, being an actual old-style patriotic liberal in the Scoop Jackson mold sets him apart as being not quite as radical as his fully Obamunist fellow-travelers, but was that any reason to get excited about Liebs addressing McCain's convention in 2008?  Or to breathlessly anticipate the party switch he never made back when it would have actually mattered?  C'mon, this is a man whose own party stabbed him in the back in '06, and he STILL caucuses with the Dems.  Yes, as he has always publicly declared he would - a nice bit of consistency and integrity - so why hang on his every word if you're a Pachyderm?  A question equally as perplexing as why Liebs wallows in the equivalent of battered wife syndrome.

Regardless, here he is holding forth on Iran, Sarah Palin, and his 2012 "independence."  None of which will endear him to the Obamunists with whom he insists on hanging around, but maybe that's his niche: being a perpetual tease - who was the deciding Senate vote for ObamaCare.  Still think he's the bee's knees?