Dick Cheney and Hillary are ready for World War III: Are you?

To paraphrase Daniel Ellsberg from the documentary on the Vietnam War Hearts and Minds: 'It is to the credit of the American people that their leaders perceived that they had to lie about what they were doing in Vietnam. That they found it so easy to lie about what they were doing, however, is not'

Yesterday in Leesburg, Va, at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, Dick Cheney did a slight reprise of his August 26, 2002 speech at the VFW convention in Nashville, when he kicked off the new War Product Year by declaring, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Basically, what his speech writer did this time around was freshen up that 2002 speech by deleting the word "Saddam" and changing the "q" to an "n."

Last time around it was Saddam who, with an "arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten percent of the world's oil reserves . . . [would] seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

Now, according to the AP: "Cheney said the ultimate goal of the Iranian leadership is to establish itself as the hegemonic force in the Middle East and undermine a free Shiite-majority Iraq as a rival for influence in the Muslim world."

See? You knock one mole down, another pops up.

Although nowadays, lots of people, including the "Intelligence community," think Iran is, at least, 5 to 10 years away from having a nuke. . . Cheney had (and has) an answer to that:

"Intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best of circumstances. . . America's top intelligence analysts would come to my office in the Defense Department and tell me that Saddam Hussein was at least five or perhaps even 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon. After the war we learned that he had been much closer than that, perhaps within a year of acquiring such a weapon."

So, who really knows how close they are? Better to err on the side of safety and "impose serious consequences."

Don't be fooled! What the Iranians are doing is practicing "delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time."

Just like Saddam.

Back in 2002 those opposed to going to war in Iraq thought that perhaps we might send inspectors in first to see if Saddam actually had any WMD.

Well, that was clearly a crazy idea. Cheney explained to all those lame-brains back then: "What he wants is time and more time to husband his resources, to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons programs, and to gain possession of nuclear arms."

And what about the argument that attacking Iran could possibly rally all those Iranians opposed to Ahmadinejad to the side of the Regime?

Cheney: "Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are 'sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans.' Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991."

And it all worked out just like he said it would. Now who are you going to believe, those Ahmadinejad-lovers like Zinni and Abizaid, for instance, or are we going to believe Dick Cheney and George W. Bush?

As Cheney said on August 26, 2002:

"In the face of such a threat, we must proceed with care, deliberation, and consultation with our allies. I know our president very well. . . I know that he will proceed cautiously and deliberately to consider all possible options to deal with the threat that an Iraq [or Iran] ruled by Saddam Hussein [Amadinejad] represents. And I am confident that he will, as he has said he would, consult widely with the Congress and with our friends and allies before deciding upon a course of action."

And most importantly, "He welcomes the debate that has now been joined here at home, and he has made it clear to his national security team that he wants us to participate fully in the hearings that will be held in Congress next month on this vitally important issue."

Yes, and like that great "debate" that went on in Congress over authorizing W. to wage war in Iraq, you can be sure that those that voted for war then will think twice this time.

Like Hillary, for example. Just because she just voted for that little resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, this time around she says, even though she supports a "robust diplomacy" against Iran [someone at AIPAC is smiling], W. shouldn't get the impression the "the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority."

Right, but he might just use that resolution you voted as a Causus Belli just like he did last time.

Time to fight the "next war," huh Hillary?