France has been making some serious noise about military action against Iran to prevent their developing, possessing and using a nuclear warhead. The rhetoric almost makes the French sound manly but until they actually fight I'll withhold judgment. They've backed off the talk recently but still sound as if they have at least half estrogen and half testosterone coursing through their foie gras clogged arteries, which is a huge improvement from when Chirac was at the helm.

Anyway, back when the US invaded Iraq, the liberals and assorted other inane folks on the left screamed that we were acting "unilaterally" even though we had numerous nations allied with us including, but not limited to: Spain, Britain, Australia, Poland, Honduras, Nicaragua, Ukraine and Japan. The hand-wringers always said that France wasn't involved so it wasn't really a coalition and didn't give damn that they were disparaging those who actually were allied with us in liberating Mesopotamia.

Well now that the French seem to have morphed into a testosterone-fueled beast ready to take on the mad Mullahs, will those who called our coalition a sham support an invasion? Even though it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Chirac was protecting cronies who were working in concert with Saddam to enrich themselves and didn't want the Oil for Food spigot turned off, they still screamed that idiotic unilateral screed. Will those wretched folks now support an invasion of Iran because the French do? I guess we'll soon see.

Iran is a major problem, they are fighting us in a proxy war in Iraq as is Syria. Should they get nukes, the Straits of Hormuz will be a constant battleground and we'll have to invade to keep it open as a huge amount of oil flows through that thin body of water. The fact that the French are rattling, well maybe not sabers but silverware is a testament to just how important this issue is.

Remember George W. Bush's Axis of Evil speech? Remember how the libs all wrung their hands because the Texas Redneck Idiot had the audacity to call out our enemies a la Ronald Reagan and his Evil Empire speech.

Well guess what? President Bush was exactly right when he lumped Iraq, Iran and North Korea in the same sentence...he only left out Syria:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 - The Sept. 6 attack by Israeli warplanes inside Syria struck what Israeli intelligence believes was a nuclear-related facility that North Korea was helping to equip, according to current and former American and Israeli officials.

Details about the Israeli assessment emerged as China abruptly canceled planned diplomatic talks in Beijing that were to set a schedule to disband nuclear facilities in North Korea. The Bush administration has declined to comment on the Israeli raid, but American officials were expected to confront the North Koreans about their suspected nuclear support for Syria during those talks.

But wait, isn't this the same Syria that Rep. Dennis Kucinich just visited and disrespected the president? Is that country led by Boy Assad, the second hand despot that Speaker Nancy Pelosi acted like she could do business with? The same Pelosi that said of Assad "We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel..." The Israelis are in a desperate position should Assad get nukes and they know it so they took action, apparently with U.S. knowledge.

According to this article in the UK Telegraph, and I've heard it said before, President Bush is determined that by the time he leaves office, Iran will not have the capability to make nukes. So far, this has meant ever increasing diplomatic pressure, but is military action necessary?

It appears that the final pieces for a military offensive are falling into place. The French are on board now, thanks to a recent election. Israel bombed a high value target in Syria, which may or may not have been nuclear material, they won't confirm or deny. Syria has links to Iran and North Korea. Iran has been overtly working against us in Iraq. And now rumors are that Rice is on board with the military option:

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

Read the article for the rest. It is quite possible that this election cycle the question of Iraq may take a back seat to that of Iran. It's hard to imagine Bush getting support from Americans and Washington DC for an attack, but a significant portion of the 70% of the public who rate him poorly do so because he isn't fighting hard enough.

One of the things some bloggers do is review both the traditional media and the new media (mostly online). One thing I've noticed is the disconnect between TV's nightly news and the new media. By the time one watches the news at night what little there seems dated and offers little depth or analysis. There are warning signs of a possible bombing or war with Iran and yet there's barely a murmur from the traditional media. I certainly would prefer to be wrong but it's not just me. It's not a left or right issue.

There are foreign policy experts

Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.

Who said that? Bush on Aug. 28, 2007. What will be the threats we will be told about ? Iran's imminent nuclear capability/attack, links to 'terrorists', and attacking Americans in Iraq. Get ready for more of the same mushroom clouds, yellow cake weapons and terrorists. Facts be damned, this administration will stop at nothing. Of course, if this campaign to misinform the public is launched it can be challenged. But by whom and how? Follow below the flip for more analysis on more precisely who will launch and who might respond.

That is, more than they already have. Anticipating the Democrats' moves to force the announcement of a surrender in Iraq in September, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced that Iran will fill the power vacuum left when the American occupiers leave Iraq. Man, does he read like a Democrat press releases or what!

"The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly," Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. "Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation."

I can't wait for the reaction from the Democrats over this statement, if there even are any. Let's see, first they'll blame President Bush, and then...well, they'll think of something, eventually.

Oh, I know! "The DNC has learned that Ahmadinejad has secretly hired Karl Rove as an adviser..."

There has been much speculation regarding the rather abrupt departure of Karl Rove. Most centers around the possibility of his indictment because he was involved in the CIA leak. Or the dismissal of the U.S. Attorney Generals. Or spying on Americans. Or rigging elections or (I could go on a bit, you know)

But there may be another reason. For starters, the stated reason (to spend more time with family) when his son is going away to college is an obvious red flag. But could there be a more altruistic reason? Could it be that Rove has lost the internal battle with Dick Cheney and chose not to stay?

According to VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) Cheney may be directing a military attack on Iran. The reason? His belief that Iran may have a nuclear weapon in a few months. The truth? Not even likely. According to the latest National Intelligence Estimate Iran will not have capability for several years at best but the current version

The latest National Intelligence Estimate regarding if and when Iran is likely to have the bomb has been ready since February. It has been sent back four times -- no doubt because its conclusions do not support what Cheney and Woolsey are telling the president and, through the domesticated press, telling the rest of us as well.

With American forces at a very low state of readiness wouldn't it be insane to attack Iran? Sure, but that hasn't stopped Cheney/Bush before has it? Wouldn't the American public and Congress deny the Bush administration the authority? Wouldn't the public outcry be overwhelming? Once again, history may repeat itself. Follow on the flip...

Iran is in the midst of solidifying their position as the regional power in the Persian Gulf. They have as a goal controlling all shipping in and out of that area by controlling the Straits of Hormuz and controlling Iraq upon our withdrawal. They are working apace at developing nuclear weapons and could have them within a year or decade depending on the source you believe. They are a theocracy with a population that is itching to gain more freedom from the Ayatollah-led government but facing severe crackdowns by that regime at any show of liberty and liberalism.

How can we deal with a regime that came to power and as part of their first official act was to kidnap and hold for 444-days Americans as hostages?

The rhetoric is starting to ratchet up as the US has said they will place the Iranian Republican Guards on a list of terror groups and has directly named Iran as a supplier of bombs and weapons to Shia insurgents in Iraq who are targeting US forces. It's getting to be a stickier situation:

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said they would not bow to pressure and threatened to "punch" the United States, in their first response to Washington's plan to list them as a terrorist organization, newspapers reported Saturday.

Local press in the Iranian capital of Tehran quoted Revolutionary Guards leader Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi saying that he could understand Washington's ire towards the group because of their recent successes against the United States.

"America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future," he was quoted as saying in the conservative daily Kayhan.

That is a direct threat aimed at the U.S. and more importantly, it is an admission by the Iranians that they have indeed been quite active in hurting U.S. troops. In other words, they are provoking us and know that we can't react because of the political climate in the U.S.

Tucked inside an article in the Los Angeles Times today was a little bombshell of information that is going to shake up a lot of people. It turns out that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker's report will actually be written by the White House. So much for any credibility that report will have -- and so much for all the Republican politicians and some Democrats who have been saying, "Wait for the Petraeus report in September, let's give him a chance."

It wasn't too long ago when a group of Republican congressional office holders met "secretly" with the president and one of their key messages was that the only one with any credibility, the only one whom people would trust to tell them the truth, was General Petraeus. NOT THE WHITE HOUSE OR PRESIDENT BUSH.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

Why am I not surprised?

First, let's remind ourselves how FUBAR it all is. A Washington Post article details how 190,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols have just somehow gone missing after the U.S. gave them to the Iraqi security forces they were training. It is estimated that 30% of the weapons we have shipped to Iraq are in the wrong hands and yet the Republicans scream bloody murder when 6 Iranian weapons are found. John McCain says "bomb bomb Iran." The entire Republican field (Ron Paul is as much a Republican as Joe Lieberman is a Democrat) continues to support President Bush's war. They are very vocal and don't say the war is wrong just that we haven't done enough. Now comes the topper:

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo's campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good "deterrent" to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday. "This shows that we mean business," said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser.

How insane is that? Let's start WW3 off with a bang, shall we? Let's just go nuclear on them, that will show them. I mentioned this item to a few people at the office and the reaction was uniform along the lines of rolling eyes and 'You've got to be kidding.' Most Americans realize we live in a real world, not some imaginary place where we can bomb away and solve problems. A bit more on the flip.

No one should be surprised that Pakistan's Foreign Minister criticized Barack Obama for his threat to take action against his country should they continue to harbor those who struck the United States on 9/11. That's just the schizophrenic nature of politics in Pakistan, where co-operation with the United States is a double-edged sword:

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Kusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

One can't help but be reminded of the hot water that John McCain found himself in after singing his Beach Boys parody, "Bomb, bomb Iran," at a campaign stop. Back then it was mostly people on the left, weary of saber-rattling diplomacy, who were up in arms at the irresponsible nature of the comments. Indeed, I include myself among them. Now, however, it is primarily people on the right who decry the "rookie mistakes" or "lack of judgment" that Barack Obama has shown in singling out Pakistan.

While I agree that quiet, or even covert diplomacy is indeed required in places like Iran and Pakistan, I think it is worth taking a look at the passage of Obama's speech that has everyone up in arms. In fact, it boils down to the following three lines:

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are blotting to strike again. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharaf will not act, we will."

Yesterday's counter attack by Barack Obama was not as much of a climbdown as I originally thought. Barack is now again defending his willingness to meet our enemies "without preconditions." From the Hotline:

Barack Obama continued to frame his dispute with Hillary Clinton this a.m. as old thinking versus a new approach. He said Clinton's views mirror those of the Bush admin.-- to meet with enemy leaders only after they met a set of preconditions. Obama said he's willing to meet them w/o preconditions, but not w/o preparation (and again, not just for coffee).

Engaging our adversaries "allows us to send a message to the rest of the world," he said, which "increases our leverage" in trying to deal with other problems. Obama also challenged reporters to question Clinton's campaign about whether they "are walking back" her statements on the issue.

Whatever else it is, this is liberalism through and through, the idea that we can solve all these problems through talking. Sometimes it's true, but more often than not the old adage is more accurate: "Diplomacy is the art of saying, nice doggie, while reaching for a stick".

In this case Iran will be the one saying "nice doggie" to us until they get the bomb. Then they can say and do whatever they want. And what they want is not good for anyone.

What Obama's saying plays well with Democrats, but in the general election not so much. Too many Americans know that in negotiations, the one who goes first is the loser.

You knew Barack Obama couldn't just take the hit. After weathering yesterday's opportunistic punch, where he was called "irresponsible and naive," and was direct from Hillary Clinton herself, Obama defends what he said and hits back in an NBC interview:

"I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out -- and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn't fully answered that issue.

"The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody.

"Now, they may not like what we want to hear -- so if I'm talking to the President of Iran, I'm going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what's necessary to protect them -- that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesn't mean we can't say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic spadework has to be done ahead of time.

The last part sounds to me like a little bit of a climb down from what he said earlier.

Last week, Sen. John McCain stopped by the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) summit in Washington, D.C. CUFI, whose founder's, um, remarkable views on Israel are detailed here, got to hear some war-mongering talk on Iran from the Arizona Republican.

"Military action isn't our preference," McCain told his audience in Washington, DC. "It remains, as it always must, the last option. We have some way to go diplomatically before we need to contemplate other measures. But it is a simple observation of reality that there is only one thing worse than a military solution, and that, my friends, is a nuclear-armed Iran."

The maverick of 2000 is continuing his shift toward unqualified conservatism, telling the crowd that he is "a Christian, proudly pro-American and proudly pro-Israel." Had he palled around with fundamentalists in the millennial year of Y2K, he might have won the Republican nomination. Is it too late for a "Second Coming"?

Congressional Quarterly's CQPolitics.com has an interesting story up today by David Nather, Lieberman's New Party Line, telling us that during last week's circus over the Iraq war, Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman was found in a surprising place:

Lately, though, Lieberman has taken his alliance with GOP leaders up a notch. During the abortive debate on the defense authorization bill, he attended daily tactical sessions to help them plan their strategy for combatting anti-war amendments and their rhetorical points for use against the Democrats. And in a fitting symbolic twist, some of those meetings convened just down the hall from the office of Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who essentially owes his 51-seat majority to Lieberman's continued caucusing with the Democrats.

Lieberman was successful in getting his amendment on Iran added to the now pulled 2008 Defense Authorization Act. That amendment points out Iran's current role in Iraq in attacking U.S. troops, requiring regular updates on how we are dealing with them. It passed by a vote of 97-0. That particular vote creates yet another logical conundrum for Democrats, as Senator Lindsey Graham pointed out, because what the Democrats are ultimately supporting (a retreat from combat and combat areas) would both hand Iran a victory over us and hand a large part of Iraq over to Iran.

Good for Senator Lieberman. This shows just how tenuous Harry Reid and the Dems' hold on majority status really is. If the Dems aggravate Lieberman too much, as is happening now, the Connecticut senator might find himself forced to caucus with the Republicans. If so, hello Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Hey, no one forced the Democrats to support Ned Lamont for Senate instead of Lieberman. One act of loyalty deserves another.

Folks, we really need to cross our fingers that the mad mullahs in Iran see reason sometime soon. If they keep up with their attempt to get a nuke it's going to go very badly for us and them. Apparently Vice President Dick Cheney is not at all happy with the progress of talks with Iran and the ineffectiveness of the sanctions currently in place. He's pushing for taking care of the problem before the Bush administration runs out of time:

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Israel can't sit around and do nothing. They're sitting in a country the size of a postage stamp. One nuke in Tel Aviv and they are done. Even the threat of a nuclear attack may lead to mass emigration. But the risks of attacking Iran are great as well, their people may rise up and support their government, the government may be angling for this attack so they have an excuse for retaliatory attacks of their own all across the globe and including in our own country. This is one of those situations where all the choices are bad. We may be forced to choose the least worst option.

The one ray of hope is within Iran. It's not a single entity dictatorship, it's an oligarchy, ruled by a religious elite. They can crack, they can be split, they can fight each other. We can only hope that they back down or can be forced to back down by an uprising of their own people.