Howard, thank you for reading the entrails for us.  There are a couple of military blogs I read regularly to try to get an idea of what's going on.  Col. Pat Lang became 'resigned'  to a US/Israeli attack on Iran about two months ago and doesn't bother addressing the topic anymore.  He's very concerned about 'force protection'.  US troops in Iraq, long supply line which he says would be compromised by Iran-allied Shia in control of those regions.  Some of his learned contributors have brought up the prospect of US troops having to fight their way out.  Lang reads the entrails a different way from you, concentrating on significances of US top commander postings and whatever scuttlebutt he can pick up from serving military. 

I also look in on Swoop.net which prepares intelligence assessments for corporate clients.  The last I read there was a 60% chance of attack on Iran before Sept. 2008.  Who knows?  Hope for the best, prepare for the worst  --  that's about all we the people can do these days. 

But you know, Howard, what really bothers me about all this isn't so much  'will they or won't they?'.  I've gotten kind of worn out on it.  What bothers me is the way these m'f's are keeping us all on the edge of our seats wondering what travesty they'll do next.  There are so many really serious problems waiting in the wings for our country and the world, related to climate change & peak oil. I wish our government could tear itself away from war games and geopolitical strategies and domestic political strategies and start thinking about the good of the country.  It's better to buy our oil than go to war for it.  And it's really pretty important to develop alternative energy sources.  (there, I feel much better than before)

Posted at March 29, 2007 9:52 AM in response to Some Dems: Against Iraq War But For War With Iran

On the other hand maybe the "base" simply does not matter.

I think you nailed it with this sentence, Arthur. 

Posted at March 27, 2007 7:28 AM in response to Some Dems: Against Iraq War But For War With Iran

 Howard Zinn weighs in:

"The withdrawal timetable proposed by the Democrats gets nothing tangible, only a promise, and leaves the fulfillment of that promise in the hands of the Bush Administration.

"There have been similar dilemmas for the labor movement. Indeed, it is a common occurrence that unions, fighting for a new contract, must decide if they will accept an offer that gives them only part of what they have demanded. It’s always a difficult decision, but in almost all cases, whether the compromise can be considered a victory or a defeat, the workers have been given some thing palpable, improving their condition to some degree. If they were offered only a promise of something in the future, while continuing an unbearable situation in the present, it would not be considered a compromise, but a sellout. A union leader who said, “Take this, it’s the best we can get” (which is what the MoveOn people are saying about the Democrats’ resolution) would be hooted off the platform.

"I am reminded of the situation at the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, when the black delegation from Mississippi asked to be seated, to represent the 40 percent black population of that state. They were offered a “compromise”—two nonvoting seats. “This is the best we can get,” some black leaders said. The Mississippians, led by Fannie Lou Hamer and Bob Moses, turned it down, and thus held on to their fighting spirit, which later brought them what they had asked for. That mantra—“the best we can get”—is a recipe for corruption.

"It is not easy, in the corrupting atmosphere of Washington, D.C., to hold on firmly to the truth, to resist the temptation of capitulation that presents itself as compromise. A few manage to do so. I think of Barbara Lee, the one person in the House of Representatives who, in the hysterical atmosphere of the days following 9/11, voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Afghanistan. Today, she is one of the few who refuse to fund the Iraq War, insist on a prompt end to the war, reject the dishonesty of a false compromise.

"Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender their integrity, claiming to be “realistic.”

"We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do."

http://www.progressive.org/mag_zinn0507

Posted at March 26, 2007 5:19 PM in response to Some Dems: Against Iraq War But For War With Iran

from Ynet News.com 1/23/07

US presidential candidate: Iran serious about its threats

(VIDEO) Former Senator John Edwards (Dem.) tells Herzliya Conference serious political, economic steps should be taken against Islamic Republic; 'in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table,' he says, adding that Syria should be held accountable for its support of Hizbullah, Hamas

 VIDEO - "Iran is serious about its threats," former US Senator John Edwards told the Herzliya Conference at the Interdisciplinary Center on Monday.

 "The challenges in your own backyard – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel," said the candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, referring mainly to the Iranian threat. In his speech, Edwards criticized the United States' previous indifference to the Iranian issue, saying they have not done enough to deal with the threat.

Hinting to possible military action, Edwards stressed that "in order to ensure Iran never gets nuclear weapons, all options must remain on table." On the recent UN Security Council's resolution against Iran, Edwards said more serious political and economic steps should be taken. "Iran must know that the world won’t back down," he said.

 Addressing the second Lebanon war, Edwards accused the Islamic Republic of having a significant role, saying Hizbullah was an instrument of Iran, and Iranian rockets were what made the organization's attack on Israel possible.

Posted at March 26, 2007 5:03 PM in response to Some Dems: Against Iraq War But For War With Iran

 "...the three front-running Democratic candidates seem to base their logic for a drawdown in Iraq not on the desirability of bringing troops home but of being able to deploy them elsewhere. "

Robert Parry has some interesting, fresh ideas on the re-deployment of US troops:

"Meanwhile, a repositioning of U.S. forces out of Iraq could include putting some American troops in Israel to ease security concerns there and to help relocate settlers off the Golan Heights and out of occupied Palestinian lands.

"The image of U.S. and Israeli troops cooperating to resolve longstanding Arab complaints would go a long way toward defusing anti-Americanism and hostilities toward Israel. The relocations also would clear the way for Israeli peace treaties with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians."

A Greater Israel by Robert Parry, published Feb.13, 2007

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/5455

Isn't it interesting how outrageously radical and pie-in-the-sky real peace appears to be these days!  It's getting to the point where the idea of peace seems to be not only un-American but maybe also insane.   (hard to know what this signifies)

Posted at March 26, 2007 7:43 AM in response to Some Dems: Against Iraq War But For War With Iran

And no US government, either Republican or Democrat, has ever addressed Israeli nuclear proliferation.  Israel now has a nuclear arsenal larger than Britain's.

Posted at March 26, 2007 6:55 AM in response to Some Dems: Against Iraq War But For War With Iran

I disagree with you analysis, Hass.  Yes, it is important to identify/correct how AIPAC/Israelis are corrupting our Congress and getting in the way of what the American public wants in ME foreign policy.  But AIPAC is only the thin edge of the wedge.  Our gov't hasn't been responsive to what the American public wants for quite a long time and on quite a number of issues, both domestic and foreign.

I think it's important to try to get the pro-Israel lobby out of its overly influential position in American politics, but the reason for undertaking to do this is because this is part of taking back our government generally.

Posted at March 26, 2007 6:51 AM in response to Some Dems: Against Iraq War But For War With Iran

Eloquently put, I wish I could express myself like you Dan K.  I read a massive amount of political analysis of the Dem's spending bill, but only one source mentioned this incredibly important attachment:

Democrats Vow to Bring the Oil Back Home (Harper's)

http://www.harpers.org/sb-democrats-oil-1174575083.html

Make sure you click on the link found in this piece, for the Dennis Kucinich letter to his Democratic colleagues, informing them about the Bush-inspired oil company perk attached to the Dem spending bill. 

It's hard to believe the Progressive Democrats of America threw over Kucinich in favor of Edwards.  Although maybe not, once you realize that they're playing for a 'winner' and not for progressive values.  Bush was a 'winner' also.  Twice.  So what?

Posted at March 26, 2007 6:39 AM in response to Some Dems: Against Iraq War But For War With Iran

"As for international laws and treaties, they still exist. As a country we can still reconform to them if we so choose."

Not sure what you mean by "reconform".

International laws and treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions on torture, that have been ratified in the past by the US Congress are and remain part of US law until changed by an act of Congress.

Posted at March 22, 2007 4:09 PM in response to Sign Petition to Thank Nick Kristof for Great Column on Israel

Of course I agree with you, Zionista, that the minority party has no control over the legislative agenda.  Bt that's not what I was talking about.  What I was talking about was political opposition.

The Dems could have, and should have, raised a hell of a stink over so many of the liberties that the Administration took in Bush's first term.  And if they had done that, there would have been no problem with taking the White House in 2004.  But no.  The Dems were way too concerned about how it might look if they appeared to be, or were spinned to be, soft on terrorism.  They were so concerned with their own political future that they left out being concerned about the future of the country.

I thought carefully about my vote in 2000 and 2004.  Agonized might be a better word!  But next year there won't be any angst at all.  How many times does it take for the Dems to do this before we get it? 

Posted at March 22, 2007 12:56 PM in response to Sign Petition to Thank Nick Kristof for Great Column on Israel