It is widely reported that the Israeli's intend to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, and they have the means to do so -- if the U.S. lets them. If Bush/Cheney want a war with Iran, they'll let the Israeli's attack through U.S.-controlled Iraqi airspace. If Iran retaliates and missiles land in Israel, or sink an American warship, does anyone really think Congressional Democrats will block "counter-attacks" against Iran?

Just type words for your link like "new meme on Iran", highlight it, click the link button and paste in the url.  It's really easy.

You have to admit, though, that the BS leading up to the war in Iran is written from exactly the same playbook as the one that led up to the war in Iraq. Do you think that this obvious coincidence is just a red herring meant to distract from the mess in Iraq?

This I am not so sure about:

Let's be clear -- the chance of Congress authorizing military action against Iran is zero. Zilch. None. Bush will not even consider asking for it.

The situation in Iraq now is exactly what Cheney/Bush/PNAC wanted it to be and have worked for it to be for many years, and that they hope to be able to use this situation, as Iran moves in to fill the power void, to justify attacking Iran. To point to Iran moving in and say "see - we told you so - Iran wants to take over".

IOW, it has been a long war with Iran. Iraq, and the Iraqi people, were just incidental expendable pawns in the game, as are the US Troops who have died or been maimed there.

The Build Up To Iran Timeline: September 2000 through January 11, 2007

Cheney Says Dems Can't Stop Bush's War With Iran
By Patriot Daily, Sun Nov 19, 2006

[Seymour Hersh:]

If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put "shorteners" on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way."

Bush Team is not concerned that the Democrats would cut funding for the Iraq war but that the Democrats might enact legislation that would prohibit the US from funding operations to overthrow or destabilize Iran:

We will be paying for these idiotic errors of pride and greed and ignorance for generations.

Non-Aligned Movement officials tour Iranian nuclear facility

Diplomats from the Non-Aligned movement, Arab League and Group of 77 began touring Iran's nuclear facility at Isfahan Saturday.

The visit to the Isfahan Uranium Conversion facility in central Iran comes ahead of a United Nations deadline for Iran to halt uranium enrichment by later this month.

The diplomats will only visit the Isfahan plant, not the facility at Natanz, where Iran is expected to announce this month that it has successfully installed several thousands of centrifuges.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/821313.html

It's not all sure they'll be able to attack Iran.  It's entirely sure that bushco wants to.  They are just waiting for the excuse.

Iraq is a bad, very bad place for the US to be.  Iraq & Iran is almost unimaginable.  Some of us think our elected leaders, on both sides, don't believe bush43 will pull the trigger.

Me, I think that since it isn't his personal ass on the line, and because thier posse will make even more money on the future contracts required to quell the whole of the middle east...Darth pulling dumbya's strings will do it without blinking an eye.

"Control is what it's all about," one oilman told me. "It's not about getting the oil, it's about controlling oil's price."

Only seemingly paradoxically, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also wants Bush and Cheney to attack Irans' reactors and nuclear research installations. His popularity has been waning for some time inside Iran, as the Iranian people have been increasingly becoming more liberal minded, and if he is to survive politically he needs an evil, demonized enemy as much if not more so than Bush does.

Iran's uranium enrichment programme has been plagued by constant technical problems, lack of access to outside technology and knowhow, and a failure to master the complex production-engineering processes involved. The country denies developing weapons, saying its pursuit of uranium enrichment is for energy purposes.

Despite Iran being presented as an urgent threat to nuclear non-proliferation and regional and world peace - in particular by an increasingly bellicose Israel and its closest ally, the US - a number of Western diplomats and technical experts close to the Iranian programme have told The Observer it is archaic, prone to breakdown and lacks the materials for industrial-scale production.

After decades of largely clandestine efforts, Iran is expected to declare in coming days that it has made a huge leap toward industrial-scale production of enriched uranium -- a defiant act that the country's leaders will herald as a major technical stride and its neighbors will denounce as a looming threat. But for now, many nuclear experts say, the frenetic activity at the desert enrichment plant in Natanz may be mostly about political showmanship.

The many setbacks and outright failures of Tehran's experimental program suggest that its bluster may outstrip its technical expertise. And the problems help explain American intelligence estimates that Iran is at least four years away from producing a nuclear weapon.

Iran's nuclear boasts come in the midst of an increasingly rancorous chess game between Tehran's mullahs and the Bush administration over the aims of Iran's nuclear programs, its role in Iraq and its ambitions to become the dominant power in the Middle East.
...
Iran's very public declarations appear to contain large doses of domestic political posturing and outright bluffing.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has become the face of Iranian defiance, is under growing pressure at home because of unemployment and the squeeze of economic sanctions -- and President Bush's advisers have said he may view a nuclear standoff with the United States as a way to help his standing. That, combined with evidence of problems at the pilot plant, suggest that the industrial push may be aimed as much at enriching Iran's political leverage as enriching uranium.

...to the failed Iraq adventure, the Bush administration is preparing public opinion for an attack on Iran, its latest target, by the spring.

The IAEA has said that for most of the past three years its inspectors have been able to "go anywhere and see anything". They inspected the nuclear installations at Isfahan and Natanz on 10 and 12 January and will return on 2 to 6 February. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, says that an attack on Iran will have "catastrophic consequences" and only encourage the regime to become a nuclear power.

Unlike its two nemeses, the US and Israel, Iran has attacked no other countries.
...
Iran has a history of obeying international law and occupies no territory other than its own.

The "threat" from Iran is entirely manufactured, aided and abetted by familiar, compliant media language that refers to Iran's "nuclear ambitions", just as the vocabulary of Saddam's non-existent WMD arsenal became common usage. Accompanying this is a demonising that has become standard practice. As Edward Herman has pointed out, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "has done yeoman service in facilitating this"; yet a close examination of his notorious remark about Israel in October 2005 reveals how it has been distorted. According to Juan Cole, American professor of modern Middle East and south Asian history at the University of Michigan, and other Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". He said: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." This, says Cole, "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all". Ahmadinejad compared the demise of the Israeli regime to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Iranian regime is repressive, but its power is diffuse and exercised by the mullahs, with whom Ahmadinejad is often at odds. An attack would surely unite them.

"Iran: The war begins"
John Pilger, 05 February 2007