"You say we're headed to war. I don't know why you say that."

That's what President Bush told reporters on December 31, 2002... as the unstoppable march to war grew.

For months, buzz has been growing about a possible war with Iran. I keep telling myself that is just people being paranoid, that the White House wouldn't really be foolish to provoke a war with Iran. I want to believe that their lust for military supremacy and their desire for an October surprise will be trumped by the more rational forces around them . But the warmongering has been too prevalent to ignore. They have been fishing for a pretext, including the nuclear program and unverified claims tying Iran to the violence in Iraq. And we have seen recent reports indicating planning is underway.

Now Seymour Hersh has a huge scoop in the New Yorker-

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium...

At one point, the article states that President Bush sees Ahmadinejad as the next Hitler (meaning he should stopped now rather than later) and that Bush believes that "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy". That's funny, I thought saving Iraq was going to be legacy. Ohh right, that didn't work out so well.

And a look on their starry-eyed outlook on what will happen-

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government."

Again, this was their misguided belief with Iraq too. It's the whole 'we will be greeted as liberators' line again. But, as history tell us, bombing campaigns/invasion do not cause a people to rally behind the bombers against their government. If anything, it will split those in Iran sympathetic to us and we will see many of them instinctively rallying behind their leaders (after all, is that not the Republicans' logic on how censure of Bush will help them?)

The scariest part... part of the U.S. planning involves using bunker-buster nuclear bombs. Boy, when Bill Frist said the Republicans wouldn't be afraid to use the nuclear option, I didn't realize he meant this!

While the few Congressional members who've been briefed on this seem enthusiastic about the decision (no doubt because they only chose to brief the specific members- Joe Lieberman on the left, Pat Roberts on the right- who will cheer them on here), many in the military hierarchy are concerned-

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

This is hardcore stuff. There should be no doubt that any critics on these decisions, like General Shinseki on Iraq, will be muted by Rumsfeld and the White House. I can already tell the same idiots who planned the Iraq debacle will be in charge of this mess too.

Getting back to the idea of another preemptive war to gain the peace, I said this last month-

Nobody in this world, save for Tony Blair, sees the United States as a force for peace any longer. We are bullies, making demands of our enemies, but refusing to cooperate with them, and then acting angered and confused when they react in a hostile manner. Has there ever been an administration with this great a predilection toward military action over diplomacy?

Had we ignored the non-threat that was Iraq, we could've kept our military resources focused on Al Qeada and simultaneously begun diplomatic relations with Iran in 2002... which was, of course, before the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Done right, we could've made great progress by 2006. But the White House never made any real diplomatic efforts. With Iraq, they at least bothered with the pretense of diplomacy. And after the historical bungling of Iraq by this administration, the fact that anyone in this country would let them even discuss the possibility of another preemptive war is, almost literally, insane. Our military is broke and depleted and this administration has proved it cannot competently do much of anything, let alone engage in war.

Add nukes into the mix... well, we could have a big problem on our hands.



Now here's my big question- Why won't the Democrats or the media point out how insane (and transparently political) this is? They let him go into Iraq without a plan and without finishing the job in Afghanistan (it's still unfinished). Now, with Iraq in tatters and inflaming terrorism worldwide, how can even one single member of Congress allow the President to suggest starting a new war?

We now know that that Iraq civil war "could affect the entire Middle East". And let's also point out that Bush's failure with Iraq has strengthened Iran's power in the region. And both Afghanistan and Iraq are now anti-U.S. theocracies... their theories on regime change and democracy-by-the-bomb have backfired on them every single time.

This administration is beyond incompetent; they are delusional warmongers. They have yet to win a war, let alone show any idea on how to properly (or humanely) wage one. They made us the scorn of much of the world. Yet here we are, in another election year, discussing the possibility of war with a country far larger than Iraq or Afghanistan and whose leaders will not fold like Saddam did.

Will not one Democrat step forward now to point that out?

No doubt the White House will do it different than Iraq just to avoid comparison. Less emphasis on ground troops (so they'll have less flag-draped coffins to hide from the public), more emphasis on air strikes (more shock, more awe!). I also imagine they'll keep journalists out of the country to prevent more kidnappings and, you know, reporting on all the destruction that's occurring.

Finally, let me just state this... Yes, Iran IS a problem. But, as with Iraq, they are not an imminent threat to us. They have not attacked us. They have threatened Israel, yes, but we are not Israel. In addition, we don't even know for sure how powerful they really are! Most of the scarier reports are, upon closer inspection, not as serious. It will be years before they have nuclear weapons and that allows us time to find a solution (time we've wasted on other matters). I agree we should not simply ignore the issue, cross our fingers, and hope for the best. But this administration is part of the problem, not the solution. Any support we may have for finding a real solution with Iran, including support in that country's citizenry, will be destroyed the second war begins. And the president will of course act unilaterally, ignoring the rest of the world, to do what Jesus Dick Cheney his gut tells him is right. And it will backfire as always. This administration has a dangerous knack for taking volatile situations and making them worse.

They should listen to words of caution like this-

“If you attack,” the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.”

Agreed. War is the easy choice for those like Bush. They need to take the hard way instead.

This insanity of rushing to war needs to be stopped dead in its tracks before President Bush starts WWIII. I have to believe that the Congress and the press will not fall for the same trick twice. I also believe the American people are past the point where they will buy into this all-too-familiar story one more time. But my expectations/hope often don't mesh with reality.