It's all a matter of perspective

...The U.S. is deeply mired in a losing war in Iraq, and is also losing Afghanistan to a resurgent Taliban. The Pentagon is scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to come up with the measly 21,500 additional troops Bush has vowed to send to Iraq, and the 4000 troops that his commanders in Afghanistan are asking for.

Iran, meanwhile, poses no immediate threat to the U.S. But it does have a huge, battle-hardened army, much better equipped than Saddam Hussein's rag-tag troops, and equipped with some very sophisticated weaponry courtesy of Russia and China. Any U.S. forces that went into Iran could expect to take heavy casualties, and could hardly hope to conquer a nation with a population bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined - a population that, unlike Iraq's - can be expected to rise as one against a US invasion.

Even if Iran is meddling in Iraq, it hardly seems like attacking that country is likely to put a halt to that kind of thing. Indeed, attacking Iran would be more likely to lead to an escalation of Iranian efforts to hobble U.S. forces in Iraq - something Tehran could easily do through its Iraqi Shia allies.

Nor would attacking Iran put an end to that nation's nuclear program, which is spread out, carefully hidden, and in many cases located in underground bunkers. Nuclear experts agree that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would only slow down its efforts, not end them, and moreover, would encourage the country to redouble its efforts to get the Bomb and achieve the kind of protection against future attack that countries with the bomb have.

Oh. I haven't mentioned the economic disaster part, have I?

Iran is the second largest oil producing country in the world, and it borders the entire eastern shore of the Persian Gulf, through which a third of the world's oil passes every year. If it was attacked, all of Iran's oil, and most of the oil produced by Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, would be taken out of circulation indefinitely. Oil prices would soar way past $100/barrel, and maybe past $200 a barrel, causing a U.S. and a global depression.

So why are we even talking about this?

We're talking about this because the President of the United States, the Vice President, and the neoconservative political gang that has brought the nation six years of war, destruction and Constitution-wrecking, is under attack, and this cabal of madmen and mad women has decided that chaos, death and destruction offers the best hope of salvation.

We are, it appears, about to witness the American equivalent of Hitler's suicide orders to the German people as he scurried to his bunker in Berlin.

What to do? The answer is simple.

It is time for the Congress, and the American people, to act.

If Senators and Representatives pass a resolution barring the use of any military forces against Iran, or the expenditure of any funds for war against Iran, Bush will not be able to push the country over the precipice. American military leaders would have reason to ignore any orders that would put them in violation of the law of the land.

This would be a historic moment‹a reassertion by Congress of its Constitutional primacy in matters of war and peace.

Members of Congress should follow up that move by initiating impeachment proceedings against this whacko immediately.

Congress must not duck its patriotic duty. President Clinton was impeached for a little blowjob. This president wants to blow a hell of a lot more than an intern.

An attack on Iran would be an international crime under the Nuremberg Charter, which calls the invasion of a country that doesn't pose an immediate threat a "Crime Against Peace" But even aside from such matters, anyone with a lick of sense knows that it would be crazy to go into another even larger war while the American military is completely tied down in two other desperate situations.

The whole Bush administration has clearly gone stark raving mad, and is willing to sacrifice the nation for its own short-term gain.

But that's only the beginning of the madness. There's what the Democratic leadership is doing, in an attempt to disturb the public complacency.

...To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes...

Of course the only people that would end up serving with this kind of law in effect would be those without the financial or political or educational clout to sidestep it. The Bu$hes and the Cheneys? Fuhgeddaboudit.

And for those of you sincere enough and naive enough to believe something like this could be written to be fair I ask please go to Iraq, trust your Dear Leader, whichever party he or she may be, and see how far down to Hell your simplicity takes you.

For the sophists who claim Mr. Rangel doesn't even intend on voting for it himself, I say, stranger things have happened this century than a sham bill used to justify an atrocity. Good intentions are the easiest to pervert. The administration actively creates chaos for their perception of national good.

So watch how you act, Congress, because how you react may be part of someone's proactive plan.