In a piece with the irresistible title of "What Me Mullah?", Roger L. Simon looks at Barack Obama's wild inconsistencies on Iran, and foreign policy in general.

On Sunday, Obama told the throng at Pendleton, Oregon: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"

On Monday, after the McCain people rushed to distribute the video of Obama's pronouncement, the Illinois Senator quickly revised his statement somewhat:

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust," he said. "The reason Iran is so much more powerful than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They're the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely."

Oh, really?

I used to do litigation, and while I hated it, this type of thinking is typical, and it is called arguing in the alternative. Behind the "tiny threat" argument is the idea that Republicans are dishonest in describing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran as grave. But on the other hand, if the threat is indeed grave, then it is the Republicans who are responsible for having done nothing -- despite the fact that the Democrats have demanded toughness! (Either way, the Republicans are wrong.)

In litigation, it typically is not supposed to matter that positions are legally or logically inconsistent, because they are played like chess moves.

What I like about McCain is that he's not arguing like a litigator (nor is he a lawyer), but as a man with common sense military experience who knows a threat when he sees one and cares more about the country than winning an argument.

Obama, as Roger points out, sees this as a debating game. Yet even according to game theory, he loses the debate:

To accept Obama's (wavering) position, you must assume that Ahmadinejad and the others are lying about their deeply held religious beliefs. That's difficult to do, since they have been so consistent in their statements and their actions for decades now. Time, to them, is on their side. Furthermore, Obama's contention that because the Iranians are not as technically advanced as the Soviets they are not as dangerous would be almost silly were it not so potentially catastrophic. It is more likely the reverse. Nuclear weapons in the hands of religious fanatics with a divine impetus to spread them is terrifying because it is unrestrained by rationality.

Michael Moore, BTW, has been acting out lately, and I think he must be one of those people who can't stand being ignored. His most recent venture has involved the illegal use of Michael Yon's pictures for his own propaganda purposes.

And, joining like-minded luminaries like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Moore has now endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds used the phrase "JAMES EARL OBAMA" in a different context, but for me, it brought to mind Moore's place of honor next to the original James Earl.

The name goes quite well with Moore and Hamas that "James Earl Obama" is not a bad all-around fit.

If I were working for the Hillary campaign, I'd circulate the hell out of this video:

As to McCain, he can always use it later.

(There's more than one way to play "Ayatollah you so.")