George,

There seems to be a inevitable move on the part of the Bush Gang to try to score a one out of three success in their obsession to practice the madness of "preemptive war".

This time the goal is Iran; the Cheney wing has managed to coerce Condoleeza Rice into the belief that Iran is truly part of the tri-partite 'axis of evil". Apparently, in a moment of lucidity, Rice has had the temerity to suggest that diplomacy and negotiation still had a chance to get Iran to fold. Now, she is "on board".

The usual hypocrisy of Bush and his minions to be pressuring Iran to give up the enrichment of uranium, when adult organizations are saying, at best, Iran is a decade away from developing anything resembling a nuclear weapon.

This all coming at a time that Bush is pushing for "strategic" nuclear weapons such as bunker busting bombs.

The fact that the United States is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons primarily against civilian targets and has a huge supply of nuclear weapons seems to escape Bush logic that Iran would see this as gross hypocrisy. This, coupled with the fact that Pakistan, a model of instability, and India, always at the ready to employ nuclear weapons are free to further develop their nuclear program as the Bushies look the other way!

Cheney's doctrine of "Go It Alone" seems to fly in the face of the rest of the civilized world where negotiation and diplomacy still seem to be the order of the day.

The madness of "pre-emptive war" is further enhanced by a congress all to ready to rubber stamp Bush's desire to "hit" Iran. "This time, he'll get it right", seems to be an increasingly persuasive selling point.

Hillary Clinton, wanting to appear tough, has gone along with the labeling of the Iranian Army as a "terrorist organization" seeming to underline the Bush propaganda push.

Unfortunately, many high ranking members of the military are seeing the folly of this latest Bush/Cheney adventure for what it really is and as Alan Greenspan has gone on record as indicating , all about oil and the control of this resource. Many retired generals and admirals are coalescing in their opposition to the Bush/Cheney abuse of the military and now they are encouraging active duty officers to speak out.

In the past, from Lincoln to Carter, military involvement with civilian authority would bring about a hasty end to a general/admiral's career, (think McClellan and MacArthur, for example).

Military intervention to stop this reckless use of American forces may, on the surface, seem to be a welcome alternative, but the precedent this could set would be a dangerous threat to democracy and the well established "wall" between military and civilian rule .

The prospects are frightening!

Harr Tenney (Electronic mail, September 28, 2007)