"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.

What are we playing at with Iran? That's been a big question on a lot of people's minds since the President's speech Wednesday night, in which he engaged in much more specific saber-rattling toward Iran and Syria than usual. One liberal blogger thinks it's a bluff. Conservative bloggers, natch, are loving the war talk; Larry Kudlow at National Review Online called him "President Backbone". Yea, Larry, starting even more wars is pretty brave stuff.

This analysis from former CIA and Bush administration National Security Council senior official Flynt Leverett seems to me closer to my thoughts when I heard the President's remarks-

According to the President, the Iranians are providing "material support” to attacks on U.S. forces. That is a casus belli... In sum, the administration is laying the rhetorical and operational foundations for implementing a presidential decision to initiate military operations against Iran.

By itself, all this worry could be dismissed. But this is not occurring in a vaccuum. We've known since early 2002 that the Bush/Cheney administration wanted a war with Iran... not only was it mentioned #2 in the infamous 'axis of evil' speech, but taking down Tehran has long been a desired prize of the neoconservatives (who, as we learned Wednesday, are still very much in control of the Bush presidency), as has been heavily documented.

Not only did the Bush crew create their own Vietnam, now they want their Cambodia too.

Of course, it must be said now-- because the war supporters will seek to obscure it-- that the first calls for war with Iran predate the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the nuclear program, the Iraq war, and all the other reasons that have been cited by warmongers for why this country deserves to be invaded/blown up. But, as with the 2002/2003 case for the Iraq war, this will quickly be forgotten.

By framing any actions we might take against Iran as connected to the violence in Iraq, it would seem the administration is doing an endrun around the Congress. They know Congress would never authorize military action against Iran. But if Bush sidles into a conflict with Iran slowly, with limited action based around the Iraq war, he can say it's authorized by the Iraq force resolution and leave it at that. And if Iran retaliates, well then he can claim self-defense.

Such a move is in character for a White House that planned similar things before Iraq.

Luckily for us, it's not 2002 and the media is no longer afraid to ask questions and the Congress no longer has its head up its own ass. For instance, MSNBC's Chris Matthews confronted White House press secretary Tony Snow on this point-

MATTHEWS: My concern is we‘re going to see a ginning-up situation whereby we follow in hot pursuit any efforts by the Iranians to interfere with Iraq. We take a couple shots at them, they react. Then we bomb the hell out of them and hit their nuclear installations without any action by Congress. That‘s the scenario I fear, an extra-constitutional war is what I‘m worried about.

SNOW: Well, you‘ve been watching too, too many old movies featuring your old friend Slim Pickens is what you‘re doing now, come on.

MATTHEWS: No, I‘ve been watching the war in Iraq is what I‘ve been watching. As long as you say to me before we leave tonight that the president has to get approval from Congress before making war on Iran.

Notice that Tony Snow never really addressed the issue. He just dismissed the mere idea as silly. But, as the title of this blog indicates, they did the same thing before we invaded Iraq.

Senators are concerned as well, with Sen. Biden using his Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearings yesterday to deliver a warning to Condoleeza Rice, stating that an attack on Iran would "generate a constitutional confrontation in the Senate, I predict to you." And freshmen Senator Webb said the following-

Sen. Webb: And this is a question that can be answered either very briefly or through written testimony, but my question is: Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take
unilateral action against Iran in the absence of a direct threat without congressional approval?

Secy. Rice: Senator, I'm really loathe to get into questions of the president's authorities without a rather more clear understanding of what we are actually talking about. So let me answer you, in fact, in writing. I think that would be the best thing to do.

Sen. Webb: I would appreciate that.

Another dodge. Sen. Webb shouldn't expect that response anytime soon.

And then there was this news yesterday-

U.S. forces in Iraq raided Iran's consulate in the northern city of Arbil and detained five staff members, a state-run Iranian news service said.

The U.S. soldiers disarmed guards and broke open the consulate's gate before seizing documents and computers during the operation, which took place today at about 5 a.m. local time, the Islamic Republic News Agency said. There was no immediate information on whether any of those detained are diplomats...

Whether or not this was an official consulate is being heavily debated. Ominous either way.

Whatever is going on, I hope these latest developments remind the Congress of what kind of President we are dealing with... one who is out of control, and is quickly becoming as great a danger to our security as those he seeks to eradicate. What are they willing to do about it? That remains to be seen.

[UPDATE (1/13): New info shows President Bush personally authorized that raid.]