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

(See Pt. I for details on our exciting, pending megawar with Iran)

More deja vu... the White House says all the rumors of impending war are unfounded-

AP: U.S. Seeks to Dampen Talk of Iran Strike

The White House on Sunday sought to dampen the idea of a U.S. military strike on Iran, saying the United States is conducting "normal defense and intelligence planning" as President Bush seeks a diplomatic solution to Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program...

[*rolls eyes*] Yea, right, whatever you say Dan. That's the same "We do not want war; we're looking for a diplomatic solution; these rumors of war are out of line" talking point we got in late 2002/early 2003. Here's two examples I remembered off the top of my head-

"I hope this Iraq situation will be resolved peacefully... I want to remind people that, Saddam Hussein, the choice is his to make as to whether or not the Iraqi situation is resolved peacefully. You said we're headed to war in Iraq -I don't know why you say that. I hope we're not headed to war in Iraq. I'm the person who gets to decide, not you."
(President Bush- December 31, 2002)

And-

"This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say 'We support the administration's ability to keep the peace.' That's what this is all about."
(President Bush- September 19, 2002)

And in this morning's White House press gaggle, Helen Thomas confronted McClellan on Iran-

QUESTION: Is the U.S. going to attack Iran?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Helen, we're pursing a diplomatic solution by working with the international community. I assume you're referring to some of the media reports. Some of the media reports I've seen, which are based on anonymous outside advisors and former officials, appear to me to be based on people that do not know the administration's thinking. I think it is a lot of wild speculation. We are working with the international community, particularly the EU-3, to pursue a diplomatic solution to a serious and growing concern.

QUESTION: Does the President think that the American people would accept any kind of an attack on Iran?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Now you're engaging in the wild speculation I just talked about. Look, those who are seeking to draw broad conclusions based on normal military contingency planning are misinformed or not knowledgeable about the administration's thinking. The international community is united in its concern about the regime obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, and that's why we are working with the international community to prevent that from happening. And we are seeking to resolve this in a diplomatic way.

QUESTION: Would the President consult with Congress before --

SCOTT McCLELLAN: Helen, I'm not going to engage in all this wild speculation. No President takes options off the table, but our focus is on working with the international community to find a diplomatic solution.

McClellan then dismisses all the reports as 'hype' and 'wild speculation'.

Yea, we've heard that before too, Scott.

I hope most people realize by now these people are pathological liars and warmongers. They insisted they wanted peace and diplomacy with Iraq and that war was the last thing on the President's mind. They said the resolution for force wasn't a declaration of war, but merely a tool to strengthen our ability to pressure Iraq (similar to the 'agressive negotiations' spin on the new Iran reports). But as we've been learning, the White House only wanted war all along... any hint of diplomacy was all just a big show for the media and the world. They wanted war and even as their case for it fell apart behind-the-scenes, they had backup plans to force it. There should be no doubt that the same is true with Iran.

See this Tom Tomorrow cartoon from 2003 in which he predicts what is happening now.

I have to wonder- Where's his base of support on this? Most of the fair-weather neocons have been disowning him publicly to save their shattered reputations. The center of the country have abandoned him; all he has left is the around 30-36% base every party has. Electorally embattled Republicans in Congress are distancing themselves from him. Yet why do I have the feeling that all of them will be right back by his side once he begins to rattle the sabers?

Because, politically, this will help a lot of people.

The President needs a legacy. The Republicans need an October surprise. And nothing gets the base rallied and the flags waving like a good battle and a media display of American military supremacy against a hated foe. And while common sense would say the President couldn't sell this again, I've learned never to underestimate the willingness of the American people to go along with his madness when they get frightened.

It's like deja vu all over again.

I really don't know much more of this insanity my brain can take... Where are the heroes will stand up to our President? They are in short supply and we need them now more than ever.

[PS- More news from Seymour Hersh that the military might not go for his latest crazy adventure- Hersh: Our Military Is ‘Very Loyal to the President, But They’re Getting to the Edge’]