Obama's first presser as President-Elect

Here's footage of President-elect Barack Obama's first press conference. (I never get tired of typing and saying President-elect Barack Obama - in a little over two months, saying President Obama will be second nature [easier for some of us than others], but for now, it's new, and I'm still reveling in Obama's victory.)

I think Obama sounded just the right tone in his first press conference. Most importantly, he emphasized that we have "one president, and that is President Bush until Jan. 20."

I'm also thankful for the 20th Amendment, the "Lame-Duck Amendment"; otherwise, we would have had to wait until March 4 for Obama to take office. And we really can't wait that long until Bush is gone. In fact, I hate it that we have to wait until Jan. 20.

There were not big surprises during the question-and-answer session following Obama's remarks, but I found this answer particularly encouraging:

QUESTION: Senator, for the first time since the Iranian revolution, the president of Iran sent a congratulations note to a new U.S. president.

I'm wondering if, first of all, if you responded to President Ahmadinejad's note of congratulations and, second of all, and more importantly, how soon do you plan on sending low-level envoys to countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, to see if a presidential-level talk would be productive?

OBAMA: I am aware that the letter was sent. Let me state -- repeat what I stated during the course of the campaign.

Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. And we have to mount a international effort to prevent that from happening.

Iran's support of terrorist organizations I think is something that has to cease.

I will be reviewing the letter from President Ahmadinejad, and we will respond appropriately. It's only been three days since the election. Obviously, how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something that we should, you know, simply do in a knee-jerk fashion.

I think we've got to think it through.

But I have to reiterate once again that we only have one president at a time. And I want to be very careful that we are sending the right signals to the world as a whole that I am not the president and I won't be until January 20th.

We can only guess as to why Ahmadinejad sent Obama a note of congratulations, but if he thinks that Obama is going to be rolled over and an easy mark, he had best think again.

McCain jokes about killing Iranians, again

Haven't we seen this faux pas before? In what context, any context, would it be funny for John McCain to joke about killing Iranians? Stupid, stupid, stupid. I can't even think of anything more witty to say, but the only thing I can add is this: If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a similar joke about the United States, just for one second, consider what Faux News would do with it?!? Dick Cheney, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk would be calling for Tehran to be engulfed in a "sea of fire."

Quite naturally, I'm sure that everyone now has to "get a sense of humor" because of McCain's absurd sense of humor. Put simply, a comment like this isn't funny under any circumstances, whether it's uttered by McCain, Obama, or any American politician. If McCain really wants to make people laugh, maybe he should talk about how he has marched with the Bush administration in lockstep in the last 4-5 years, once he decided he wanted to run for the presidency again.

If he really wants to make people laugh, perhaps he can talk about his plethora of flip flops, including: abortion, the Bush tax cuts, immigration, a Martin Luther King Holiday, torture, etc.

I cannot in my right mind figure out why people would want this guy to be president, unless said people love war, which McCain and his supporters seem destined to start.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very concerned about Iran, especially their testing of short and medium range missiles yesterday. Without question, the country needs to be taken seriously, but that includes diplomacy, which thus far the Bush administration (and McCain) seem ill-inclined to do.

What's more, McCain's adoring media seem to be unwilling to give this story the coverage it deserves. For instance, AP put out a story titled, "Political Play: Wife pokes McCain in the back." Really? That's the main point of the story?

I'd also like an explanation as to why "$158 million in cigarettes have been shipped to Iran during George W. Bush's presidency despite restrictions on U.S. exports to that country," according to an AP report that led to the question resulting in McCain's hilarious joke. Why would the US be exporting anything to Iran? After all, they are part of Bush's Axis of Evil.

Like all things, however, conservatives will probably react with disdain in the face of the facts.

British sailors heading home

I can't escape the feeling that the West got off easy today. This morning, Iran, in a diplomatic and symbolic gesture, released the 15 British sailors it took hostage 13 days go. (Above, the soldiers in Tehran, walking to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier today.) I'm very thankful that this was solved peacefully, because there were some indications that this was going to lead to a military confrontation between Iran and the UK, and be extension, the US.

Of course, I question the motives of the Iranians - it's a little difficult not to - considering the timing of the hostages' release and Ahmadinejad's comments. As reported by AP:

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Muhammad) ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people _ with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial _ forgave those 15," he said, referring to the Muslim prophet's birthday on March 30 and the Easter holiday.

"This pardon is a gift to the British people," he said.

I have little doubt that Ahmadinejad timed the release and his comments to curry favor around the world for Iran, which has been slapped with some severe sanctions by the United Nations and the West.

Having said that, and I'm sure I won't read this opinion in many, if any media outlets in the west - Ahmadinejad deserves some credit, too. Clearly he does not want an armed confrontation with the West. If he did, these British sailors would still be in captivity, and he would still be ratcheting up the rhetoric and taking a much harder line than we are seeing now.

I've read and heard some reports that the US was seeking an armed confrontation with Iran. There are some totally unconfirmed reports out of Russia that the U.S. intends to invade Iran on April 6. I never truly believed it in the first place, but it even looks less credible now.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed his gratitude to Iran for the decision to let the soldiers go free. He reportedly said he has "no ill will" toward the people of Iran. Okay, not much, but it's a start.

I will go to my grave thinking that this could have been the incident that would have started war with Iran had the Democrats not taken control of Congress last November. God only knows the old GOP-controlled Congress did nothing but rubber-stamp whatever the president wanted. The best part about it is that we'll never know, and that's just what everyone but the heartiest of war mongers was hoping for.

APF was reporting on Monday that U.S. Air Force jets had approached and even violated Iranian airspace, in what could only be interpreted as an act of provocation, if true. If it is true, that's outrageous and stupid. I'm all for showing force when countries are trying to bully America, but what I'm not for is provoking a confrontation. That seems to be what this administration is after.

On another note, I went off half-cocked the other day about the British hostage situation. I heard some political commentary yesterday that made me rethink my outrage at Iran having shown the British soldiers on TV. Of course, the British, and Americans, were outraged at this. I'm not saying it was right, but let's take a comparative walk down prisoner lane...

The CIA, at various Black Sites, has reportedly done the following to detainees: water boarding (which Dick Cheney, prior to the 2006 election, said publicly he supports); solitary confinement of prisoners for days, weeks and even months; physical beatings, to the point that prisoners' muscles turn to pulp; humiliation in various ways, including things that violate detainees religious beliefs; excretions on prisoners; sensory deprivation; keeping prisoners up for days on end; and suspending prisoners in extraordinarily uncomfortable positions for hours and says.

The Iranians showed the prisoners on television, evidently forced to apologize and sign confessions, in one case. I acknowledge that there many have been abuses or worse that we don't yet know about, but I'm sure that detainees at Guantánamo Bay would love to get the treatment that it appears these British 15 received.

I'm for getting information out of prisoners by any reasonable means possible, but history should have taught us one thing about torture - it's routinely unreliable when trying to get information from prisoners.

But, when you think about what can happen to British soldiers and American soldiers if they are captured, even the most die-hard, chest thumping hawk should stop and think what public knowledge of these interrogation methods could mean to our soldiers in captivity, if they are captured.

Yes, the Iranians let the UK (and the US) off easy on this one, without question. Maybe Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't quite the monster he's portrayed to be. (Above, Ahmadinejad, second from right, meets with British soldier Faye Turney, 26, in Tehran earlier today.)

To repeat, clearly this is an indication that he wants dialogue with the West. We should sit down at the table and talk to him. Talking and dialogue doesn't = weakness. Someone needs to scream this into Bush's ear.

I'm not holding my breath while President Bush is in office.

Photos from AP