Molly Ivins hit it right on the head in a recent column when she wrote "some days it’s hard to figure out what the Bush administration thinks its doing.”

Besides having landed us in a Middle Eastern quagmire that is daily bleeding our military white, bankrupting the government in the process, there is no better example of the truth of Ivin’s assertion than our policies, or lack thereof, towards Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which this administration now calls “alarming.”

Three years after the president identified Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil,” the utter absence of any policy whatsoever is glaringly apparent. (Ditto, North Korea.) Obviously, the use of force is off the table, so what is this administration going to do when the Iranians start making bomb grade uranium? (The larger and more dangerous question is what Israel will do.)

The pentagon spy case involving a member of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith’s office providing secrets to Israel perhaps sheds some light on the present thinking regarding the Iranian problem.

The alleged spy is reported to have met with Manucher Ghorbanifar, a former figure in the Iran/Contra scandal, claiming to have access to some members of the Iranian government, presumably willing to help us with “regime change” in Tehran. (Eerily reminiscent of Ahmad Chalabi suckering Feith and the Vice-president into believing he had any idea at all of what was going on in Iraq.)

The fact that this Iranian “contact” is viewed by the CIA as a "fabricator” is hardly an impediment to the gang that couldn’t shoot straight at the “Office of Special Plans.”

Additionally, there is talk in some pentagon policy circles of rearming and dropping the “terrorist organization” designation of an ex-pat Iranian militia operating against Iran from inside Iraq, much as we helped out Osama Bin Forgotten in Afghanistan during the 80’s.

It seems the brain trusters at the pentagon find it impossible to repeat just one mistake at a time. It is likely this administration will ignore the Iranian nuclear program until after the election by using the United Nations as its foil, if the past is any indicator, and then go blundering into another disaster of its own making.

Molly Ivins asks “did any of us sign up for this four years ago?” The more pertinent issue now is whether we can survive signing on for four more years.

They all ought to be ashamed.

According to the New York Times "

Ben Barnes, a former speaker of the Texas House who has said he got George W. Bush into the National Guard in 1968, told an audience of John Kerry supporters in Austin on May 27 that he was ashamed of his role

I walked through the Vietnam Memorial the other day," Mr. Barnes said, according to a videoclip posted on the Internet this summer, "and I looked at the names of people who died in Vietnam and I became more ashamed of myself than I've ever been because the worst thing I did was get a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance into the Guard and I'm very sorry about that and I apologize to you and the voters of Texas." (Of course, if W's squadren of obsolete planes had been sent to Vietnam, he would have gone. If they could find him that is.)

Hmmm, isn't that intersting?

Another interesting fact is that John O'Neill, the main force behind the so called "Swift Boat Veterans" and holder of a thirty year old grudge against Kerry, thinks George Bush is an "empty suit" who is unfit to lead the country. Regardless of 'W"'s inability to run the country O'Neill is still going to vote for him because he hates Kerry so much. That's reasonable, right?

Why isn't this being mentioned in regard to the whole Kerry is a faker debate?