Oooh, nuance!

Ah feel yer pain, Madame Speaker. I know that you're worried that you can't stop the war while impeaching Bush. I know you think that the Democrats won't win in 2008 if you impeach him. I know you may have made a deal of some sort, or perhaps you know the effort will fail in the Senate and you don't want to lose.

But George Bush has been caught out, right there on the TeeVee. He has been lying, fearmongering and warmongering for 4 months about Iran and its "nucular" weapons program, which we now know they had discontinued FOUR YEARS AGO. Come on, Nancy, I'll give Bush a blow job myself if that'll get things going! (Of course, it may take me a while to locate the Presidential pee-pee. I have always maintained that he is anatomically incorrect, like a Ken doll. But I would consider it a small sacrifice for my country.)

And think about it: Weren't we all stunned at the Deciderer's rudeness when he refused to spend more than an hour at the recent Middle East peace conference in Annapolis? He must have been afraid that his secret knowledge about the lack of threat coming from Iran would slip out and *gasp* make peace more likely. We all know that the Rapture can't come that way, dammit!

So come on, Speaker Pelosi. Set the table. America is starving for it.

Ordinarily I'm not a fan of Condoleezza Rice. In fact, I have been known to call her a "gap-toothed oil-drinking bitch." But I've heard very often that she is one of the voices advocating against bombing Iran, and it seems that yesterday, she made her views public.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday she does not believe a Senate resolution authorizes President Bush to take military action against Iran.

"There is nothing in this particular resolution that would suggest that from our point of view. And, clearly, the president has also made very clear that he's on a diplomatic path where Iran comes into focus," Rice said.

The Senate in late September voted 76-22 in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

While the resolution, by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only Senate Democrat running for president to support the measure. Her rivals have argued that Bush could use it to justify war with Iran. Clinton insists her vote would not support military strikes and instead was a vote for stepped-up diplomacy.

On Sunday, Rice echoed that view. She said Bush was focused on diplomatic options - not waging war.

Now, I'm not saying that I believe Condi Rice, or any of these lying Fascists. Jeebus forbid! There could be many nefarious motives behind this statement. Who knows - maybe the Bushies are trying to spike Senator Clinton's campaign by drawing parallels between what Hillary is saying and what Rice is saying about Iran.

What is interesting, however, is that Rice has definitively come out and said that the Kyl-Lieberman resolution does not authorize war against Iran. It will be difficult, in these days of ever-increasing opposition to the occupation of Iraq, to take such a statement back.

30 Senators (all Democrats and one Independent, of course) make it clear that the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment did not give Bush authority to make war on Iran.

Thirty US senators wrote to President George W. Bush Thursday, warning he had no authority to launch military action against Iran, and expressing concern about the administration's "provocative" rhetoric.

The senators, 29 Democrats and one independent, urged the resolution of disputes with the Islamic Republic through diplomacy.

"We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran," the letter signed by senators including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden said.

The letter warned that a resolution passed by the Senate in September, calling for the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, should not be used as a pretext for war.

It hit out at "provocative statements and actions" by the administration on Iran, after Bush last month warned Tehran must be barred from nuclear weapons to avoid the prospect of "World War III."

"These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy," the letter, coordinated by Virginia Senator Jim Webb, said.

My feelings on this are mixed. I'm very happy that these Senators are now on record opposing Bush and his insane warmongering. But why did they give Bush the slightest encouragement in the first place? And what will they do if he bombs Iran anyway?

I was a big Hillary Clinton supporter until she voted for that amendment. Unfortunately, this letter doesn't make me feel that much better about her judgment. She's doing the right thing, but is it too late?

I am afraid that the Top Three Democrats - Clinton, Obama and Edwards - have all bought into the neo-con frames on foreign policy matters. Truthfully, all the Democrats are pretty good on domestic issues - certainly worlds better than Bush - so I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is that the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war for resources will continue after the new President is sworn in.

The horror!

Or so says the man who was right about Iraq's non-existent WMD.

[Mohammed] ElBaradei said force should be used only when all diplomatic options have failed, adding there was plenty of time for diplomacy, sanctions, dialogue and incentives to bear fruit.

"I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb," the Nobel peace prize winner said.

"We are not at all in that situation. Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it."

Once again, it's bait-and-switch time. It's a double whammy - baiting us with Iraq, then switching to Iran; and baiting us with Joe Wilson, but switching to Valerie Plame.

Ms. Plame, in conjunction with the release of her book, Fair Game, has just disclosed that she was working on tracking Iran's nuclear intentions when her identity as an undercover CIA agent was leaked to the press by the Bushies. Common wisdom at the time was that the Bushies went after her to retaliate against her husband, who had just written an article stating that Bush's claims that Iraq was seeking nuclear material from Niger were patently false.

There was no question that this article was potentially extremely damaging to the pro-invasion cause. Ambassador Wilson's credentials were impeccable and he would be difficult to discredit. However, many have speculated that the true target of the leak was Ms. Plame herself.

George W. Bush made his "axis of evil" speech on January 29, 2002, long before the invasion of Iraq - and when Iran was led by the moderate President Khatami. Clearly, Iran was on Bush's mind. But why? Then as now, there was no indication at that time that Iran had any intention to attack America (or any other country), and Ahmadinejad, with his inflammatory anti-Israeli and anti-American rhetoric, was not the President.

Just as Alan Greenspan has admitted that Iraq was about oil (and, I would add, PNAC dreams of a world united under the American Empire), it seems obvious that the desire of many Bushies to attack Iran is about the same things.

Knowing that the desires for oil and power are not acceptable reasons to attack a country that has not attacked us, is it not possible that Bush and his cabal knew that Ms. Plame and her group were gathering intelligence that would disprove future claims of Iranian nuclear prowess? And that they acted to disable one of the CIA's most valuable assets before it could report that Iran had no nuclear weapons, just as Mohammed ElBaradei claims?

Ms. Plame herself believes the target of the Bushies' malevolence was indeed her husband and that she was just "collateral damage." Yet at the end of the interview, as reported by Raw Story, Ms. Plame said the following:

"I hope," said Plame, "that the American people have learned the lesson to pay close attention to what their leaders are saying and try to educate themselves and get as much information before we rush heading again into a disastrous war based on twisted intelligence."

Wouldn't it be so much easier to educate ourselves if we had Ms. Plame's reports on Iran's lack of nuclear weapons?

You know what? There's actually some good news out of North Korea today.

BEIJING — North Korea will provide a complete list of its nuclear programs and disable its facilities at its main reactor complex by Dec. 31, actions which will be overseen by a U.S.-led team, according to a statement released Wednesday by the six nations involved in disarmament talks.

The U.S. has been involved in six-party talks in North Korea for the past four years, and amazingly, THEY WORKED. Isn't it funny how not bombing countries with nuclear programs can be so effective?

Unfortunately, Fear and Loathing, Inc. will, as always, fail to learn the right lesson from this positive result. If asked by the compliant and complicit traditional media why they can't enter six-party talks with Iran as well, they'll say that Iran is killing our soldiers in Iraq and is harboring a terrorist organization. (Gee, sounds just like Saudi Arabia! Why don't we bomb them then?)

What they won't tell you is the truth, which even Alan Greenspan admitted recently. If an unfriendly country has oil, any excuse to invade and steal its resources will do.

I have been wondering and wondering why Nancy Pelosi does not allow John Conyers to impeach Bush and Cheney. I don't think it's a lack of courage - it takes a lot of strength to hold Democrats together, which she has largely succeeded in doing. And certainly she is no Fascist.

In the past year or so, there have been many ominous rumblings about how the Administration is planning on bombing Iran. The drums of war are beating the same rhythm they played in the run-up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. And of course, the reasons are the same: Oil, Pax Americana, and the keeping and holding of power by a regime bent on establishing Fascism in the United States.

Being that Bush and his puppetmaster are clearly willing to do so, why haven't they let the bombs fly? They feel unrestrained by the will of the people, since they veto every popularly-supported bill the Democratic Congress sends them (unless it gives them more money for the war, of course). The media, for the most part, uncritically repeats the RNC talking points of the day, even accepting the burgeoning meme that Iran attacked us on 9/11.

Yes, all signs point to war. So what's holding the Deciderer back?

Could it be that he worked out a deal with Pelosi, that if he didn't bomb Iran, she would not begin the impeachment proceedings? What a Faustian bargain that would be...

I really, really, don't want to think about this or say it. But playing 'see no evil' with what the Bushies and their neocon enablers like Joe Lieberman are doing with Iran is just not an option.

I went ballistic when I read that the Senate had voted 97-0 to approve Joe Lieberman's non-binding resolution that Iran is really, really naughty and deserves to be spanked. I'm kidding because I'm terrified! Here's what it really said (via firedoglake).

The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility
against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq.

Of course, there's no such amendment regarding Saudi Arabia, which is responsible for most of the foreign support for the insurgency. Why would there be? They already let us have access to their oil.

Technically, the resolution says nothing about military action. Realistically, it is non-binding. But in terms of the KKKarl Rove frame that engendered it? It's the authorization for making war on Iran, if the Democrats don't wise up - and soon.

Let's face it. The phrase "the war on terror" was never challenged by the Democrats until it had become a part of the mass media echo chamber. I understand that the media would have crucified any Democrat that stood up and said "Hey! You can't make war on a feeling or a tactic! Terrorism cannot be beaten by military action!" In fact, they did so, when John Kerry said as much during his Presidential campaign.

But now, it looks like the Bush Administration is ready to build another case for another war on another country that did not attack us. How will they do it? By declaring a portion of that government's country....terrorists.

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is moving toward blacklisting Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "terrorist" organization, subjecting at least part of the entity to financial sanctions in a new move against the Islamic republic, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

A decision has been made in principle to name elements of the corps a "specially designated global terrorist" group, but internal discussions continue over whether it should cover the entire unit or only its main military wing, the Al-Quds force, the official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because a decision, which must be approved by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has not yet been made. It was not immediately clear when the designation, first disclosed by The Washington Post, would be made public.

Uh-huh. Like the decision was "not yet made" to invade Iraq until Saddam just wouldn't let the inspectors in, right? (Oh yeah. He DID let the inspectors in and they found no WMD, so Bush pulled them out and invaded because he wanted to. I forgot.)

The decision is made, at least in some circles. Cheney, the neocons and the Zionists are allied in an Axis of Evil, as it were, and they are trying desperately to get Bush to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (as John McCain so memorably sang on the campaign trail). And because the Senate Democrats as a group have bought into the frame that the only acceptable response to terrorism is war, they are seemingly bound by their own words to support this invasion.

I say "seemingly", because there is a way out. The Democrats may not want to take the best way, which is of course to challenge the Bush-Rovian doctrine of pre-emptive war (called part of Bush's lasting legacy by Rove in his farewell speech). I really, REALLY want them to do this, because we need to move towards a modern foreign policy that deals with the true challenges of globalization, not keep on with the old Cold War formulation of proxy wars with hostile nations.

BUT - if the Democrats really can't find their spines, they can say this:

"What's the plan, George? We won't give you any money for this war unless you show us the plan."

Instantly the frame breaks. War is chaos without a plan. All the Democrats have to do is point to Iraq and the Invisible War, Afghanistan, to show how terribly the heedless prosecution of war will turn out. And needless to say, invading Iran simply cannot be done successfully. So there is no plan, and thus, there will be no war with Iran.

I will be calling my Senators and telling them that the American people will not accept war with Iran under any circumstances whatsoever. I hope you - and millions of Americans - will do the same. Let's hope it stiffens their spines...or at least, wises them up.