William M said this awhile back,

"...in truth if Iran enriches uranium (as it can legally do) it will be close to being able to make nuclear weapons. So there is a time factor. It is important to negotiate a timely settlement with Iran that will guarantee its security in exchange for its willingness to forego domestic uranium enrichment. This doesn't justify Obama's dangerous rhetoric, but it is important to keep in mind."

There are a few other commenters here who have noted the difference between making power grade materials and weapons grade materials. And one noted that to pursue a bomb, one doesn't have to make a bomb.

Obsfucating the conflation that I spoke about before does make it seem that Iran is more dangerous to Israel, or even the United States, than any U.N. observers or the U.S. intelligence agencies have evidence to support.

I suspect Obama understands that Iran has no bomb and has no intention of building one. He's talking tough, based on his not publicly acknowledging the difference and significance between approx. 4% enrichment and 95%+ enrichment. There may even be a current military program to destabilize Iran's gov. or sabatoge the nuclear power infrastructure.

I suspect all this is to justify the embargo and continuing effort to marginalize and undermine Iran. The purpose of that is to maintain and promote American influence in the area. The purpose is not about stopping some existing nuclear weapons program.

I thought the purpose of the political party, or the particular politician, was to work for us. It's a myth, but it's our myth...

But, in order to understand what we'd like our representatives to do for us, we should argue about, chat over, and generally debate, all the aspects of what we need, or want, and how best to get those things done.

Armed with a fair to middlin understanding of what our direction should be, inevitably, we should be able to tell when our leaders are not doing what we think they should be. So, when Obama isn't doing what he's supposed to be, we have to tell him. We have to argue for what we think is in our best interests. For someone to say that we ought not give him such direction is surely undemocratic from a very deep level.

The problem is the Democrats are torn. They are asked by their corporate donors, those with really deep pockets, to go one way, and their base consisting of most of the voters, are asking them to go in a completely other direction.

The corporations want to preserve the status quo involving insurance companies getting their cut. The people would like a single payer health care system. The corporations want the government to spend a lot on military hardware. The people don't want the waste involved and the wars used to justify the continual expenditures for guns instead of butter. The corporations want gov. handouts when they are going under. This does not seem to leave any money left for the people when they are going under.

And Glenn seems to be pointing out other such tensions.

You said,

"...Quite relatedly, Iraq War veteran Brandon Friedman chronicles the truly disturbed warrior fantasies that are becoming increasingly common (and increasingly disturbed) on the war-cheerleading Right. The relationship between that pathology and people like Friedman is too obvious to require any elaboration."

It puzzled me why Friedman would try to articulate in the way he did any Israeli rationale for their attacks on Gaza, or Palestinians in general. You'd think he would be aware of the criticisms that would be made about some of the things he said. Like what you have said pointing out the war crimes involved. I would expect a rationale that would put Israel in the best light possible, not one that made them sound guilty of cruelty and war crimes.

You noted here that the advocates of this war have been developing fantasies as a way, perhaps, of trying to justify in their own minds some of these Israeli actions. If they are bizarre, it might be because they have to go to great lengths to come up with an explanation that explains away the war crimes, the cruelty, the terrorism...

The opponents of the war can get into their heads fantasies that try to explain why anyone would do this attack.

Mine is based on the supposition that American politicians find nothing wrong with Israeli attacks on Palestinians because they have never found anything wrong with American attacks on native Americans, the Apache, etc.

This is how it goes: Some guy comes up to the families of whomever owns the land, say it's Palestinians this week, or the Sioux last, and says, "Listen, I like your land and I want to take it. You are going to have to go. In order to encourage you, I'm going to start shooting heads. Here let's start with your brother,"...BANG. "Now, go away." After awhile there are still some left. They don't want to leave their land. The guy says, "Listen, don't you hear what I'm saying. Go away.. I'm going to shoot your sister."...BANG! "Go away."

The process involves maybe some Palestinians or Apaches trying to fight for their land, but the people who are willing to shoot folks for their possessions are bigger and are just able to cause more suffering.

This is the explanation I go to when I want to explain my country's behavior, or when I try to understand Israeli behavior. They're just copying our examples.

It's the kind of explanation that fits the facts.

I suspect Friedman's fantasies involve his thinking that the land didn't really belong to the Palestinians just like we argued the land didn't really belong to the Apaches.