Amir Taheri says Barack Obama is getting an education about the realities of the Middle East.

IN his address to the American Israeli Political Action Committee last week, Sen. Barack Obama discarded some of his most dangerous positions.

Of Iran, for example, he said: "The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

Except for the politically correct phrase "violent extremists" instead of the more accurate "terrorists," those words could have come from President Bush.

All who've supported the Bush Doctrine should welcome this dramatic change. No longer does Obama claim that talk of a threat from Iran is an "obsession instead, he recognizes the danger of nuclear proliferation - and acknowledges the Islamic Republic as something more than a "tiny" challenger.

He has also "evolved" on Iraq. He no longer shares Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's belief that America has already lost the war. And he's discarded his pledge to pull US troops out in the first year of his presidency. He now talks of "a responsible and phased withdrawal" - exactly what Bush is committed to.

More important: He no longer says "there are no good options in Iraq now, "there are not many good options" - which means there are some.

His anti-war base should be getting nervous.

Pat Buchanan and Bob Beckel, in separate opinion pieces, both make a Obama-Reagan comparison. Here is Buchanan's take...

Democrats may talk of making the economy the issue this fall, but Republicans are going to make Barack the issue. Story line: We cannot entrust our beloved America, in a time of war, to this radical and exotic figure who has so many crazy and extremist associates.

Barack's problem is thus Reagan's problem.

As the country wished to be rid of Jimmy Carter in 1980, so the nation today wishes to be rid of Bush and his Republicans. But America is apprehensive over a roll of the dice, in Bill Clinton's metaphor.

How did Reagan ease the anxiety? In the debate with Carter, he came off as conservative, yes, but also traditional, mainstream, witty and the more likable man. The real Reagan came through.

With his persona, Barack may be able to do the same -- in the debates.

Here is Beckel's take...

Question: Name the presidential candidate described below.

An unpopular incumbent president sits in the Oval Office. His party's brand is badly tarnished. The economy is in shambles, unemployment on the rise. The housing market is in crisis. Gasoline has become a major issue.America is enmeshed in a protracted crisis in the Middle East with no end in sight. We are near war footing with Iran. The reputation of the United States is diminished world wide. In historically high numbers, voters believe the country is on the wrong track.

The opposition party has nominated a charismatic candidate for president whose oratorical skills are compared to JFK, perhaps better. He had been introduced to the majority of Americans by way of a spellbinding keynote speech at a previous national party convention.

He has a fervent core of supporters and has emerged as the leader of his party through an insurgency that challenged and ultimately defeated his party's establishment. He runs against Washington and the special interests that control the Capitol. His message is change and hope.
If ever the public demanded change in Washington, it is in this presidential year. It could not be a better political environment for the party out of power. Yet with all the stars aligned perfectly for a party change in the White House, national polls show the opposition candidate barely ties, and often trails, his opponent.

There is little doubt about the voter's desire for change, but there is plenty of doubt about this candidate who pledges to deliver it. Who is the candidate?

Answer; A) Barack Obama B) Ronald Reagan C) Both

The correct answer is C.

Read the whole thing.

In case you missed it, Fred Hiatt says that a new Congressional report about the case for war in Iraq pretty much deflates the whole "Bush Lied, People Died" narrative. He didn't lie. The intelligence was wrong, which is why a lot of Democrats, including the chairman of the committee that released the report, agreed with the President about the nature of the threat. Still, that didn't stop them from essentially concluding that the President mislead the country about the threat, which is why headlines to that effect were generated by the release of the report.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

Read the whole thing.