Second verse, same as the first...

Those of us old enough to remember Vietnam were amazed, during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, by how many people seemed to have never learned or to have forgotten the lessons of that military disaster. But it occurred more then thirty years ago so, I guess, that would help to explain part of it. But for people to have failed to learn from the fiasco that is the occupation of Iraq, or worse, to have already forgotten it (I know of goldfish with better retention) is mind-boggling.

So here we have the public discourse being primed and framed to accept the notion that America may be forced to attack Iran -- I mean what's a trailing consonant among friends. The technique is the same -- get the word out, get Iran on people's minds (the current issue of Reader's Digest, for gawd's sake!), hype the threat, gin up the evidence, get people scared, treat ridiculous suggestions as reasonable, get several of the scenarios "out there" and frame the discussion such that it is just a matter of choosing from among the several ways of attacking Iran that is being debated not whether we should even be considering it at all.

We've been here before, people! There using the same tired and false (as opposed to tried and true) M.O. -- fear and smear. Billmon predicted this and called it the flight forward -- having screwed the pooch in Iraq, they seem to be saying: let's try to salvage something of our tattered reputation by doing something bigger and bolder in Iran. It is to weep...

I almost don't blame BushCo for being contemptuous of the voting public if it can be sold a bill of goods like this... again!