I'm not being disingenuous here. Before I continue, let me make this clear: Personally, I don't agree with Obama on Iran. He is to the right of me on how to handle them. I think he pandered to AIPAC, and I think the other candidates do likewise.

My point of contention here is that this is being mislabelled as a flip-flop. I'm sorry, but that's completely ignorant. His detractors are flat-out wrong when they say he'll capitulate to Iran, just as his supporters are wrong if they were single-issue voting for him because they thought he wouldn't engage in the same sort of swaggering and aggressive posturing we tend to do with much of our foreign policy there.

Valid criticisms of today's speech to AIPAC would be that he was pandering, that he was doing a bit of saber-rattling, and that he is misguided if he thinks we can hold any legitimacy at large in the Middle East if we continue to turn a blind eye to Israel's many abuses.

It was not, however, flip-flopping. Referring to S.970 was not enough, apparently -- people don't want to look it up for themselves. I'll quote:

(5) An Iranian nuclear weapons capability poses a grave threat to the security of the United States and its allies around the world.

(6) It is in the national security interests of the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

(7) The United States should use all political, economic, and diplomatic tools at its disposal to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

.....

The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189)

So if people are shocked at his comments today, it's simply because they weren't paying attention earlier. And then they express that shock by implying that those of us who support Obama are the ones not abreast of the issues? It's ridiculous.

So when you say "he opposed labeling the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization because he viewed it as a step toward war with Iran" I have to laugh because Obama has co-sponsored a bill which labels the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization. Why did he support S.970 and not Kyl-Lieberman? There is much you could read on the fundamental differences between the bills (or, you know, even read the full text of each bill yourself) but I'll cop-out by linking to Dodd's explanation. My own impression is that Obama opposed Kyl-Lieberman because it has too much muddy language intermingling its resolutions with Iran's involvement in Iraq and that opens it up to abuse. You want to talk about rhetoric ratcheting up the march to war, read Kyl-Lieberman and then contrast it with S.970.

Finally, quit operating under the assumption that all of Obama's supporters are 100% with him all the way. There's only one guy who agrees with Obama on every position, and he's running for president. Like I said, I'm not on board with him here -- but I'll also say this: I have more faith in Obama pursuing aggressive diplomacy than I did in any of the other candidates. That's enough to 'satisfy' this Progressive.