I try not to overreact to each rumor of a U.S. attack on Iran, but I think it's time to get seriously worried.

On August 28, Bush gave a warmongering speech on Iran to the American Legion, just as he did in 2002 on Iraq:

Iran has long been a source of trouble in the region. It is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Iran backs Hezbollah who are trying to undermine the democratic government of Lebanon. Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent, and target Israel, and destabilize the Palestinian territories. Iran is sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, which could be used to attack American and NATO troops. Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and pose no threat to their regime. And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.

Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late...

I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities.

Next we have this from a friend of Barnett Rubin, Director of Studies and Senior Fellow at the Center on International Cooperation of New York University (h/t Digby):

They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this--they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is "plenty."

Of course we know the week after Labor Day is when the Busheviks roll out their "marketing campaigns" for new wars, as NY Times' resident "loyal Bushie" Elisabeth Bumiller famously reported on 9/7/02:

''From a marketing point of view,'' said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, ''you don't introduce new products in August.''

Then over at DailyKos, Maccabee reported on a conversation with an active duty officer aboard a carrier attack group in the Persian Gulf, who says a U.S. attack is imminent:

"I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway."

I asked her why she was suddenly so cynical.

"I have become cynical only recently. I also don’t believe anyone will be able to stop this. Bush has become something of an Emperor.  He will give the command, and cruise missiles will fly and aircraft will fly and people will die, and yet few of us here are really able to cobble together a great explanation of why this is a good idea...

"We're gong to hit Iran, bigtime. Whatever political discussion that are going in is window dressing and perhaps even a red herring. I see what's going on below deck here in the hangars and weapons bays. And I have a sick feeling about how it's all going to turn out."

So all signs point to Bush unleashing a massive bombing campaign against Iran.

As Glenn Greenwald points out, there are many things Congressional Democrats could do to stop Bush's next war:

It could make clear that the existing Iraq AUMF does not include authorization to attack Iran inside Iranian territory. It could enact legislation requiring Congressional approval before an attack on Iran is authorized. It could make clear that no funding will be available for any such attack in the absence of a Resolution authorizing a new war.

But as Greenwald points out,

Even the most mild of those measures -- an amendment which would merely have required Congressional authorization before the administration attacks Iran -- was meekly withdrawn by Democratic House leaders back in May because, as The Hill reported, Israeli-centric Congressmen and AIPAC itself "lobbied heavily to remove the Iran provision in the supplemental." 

So here's my question: have House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid been briefed on Bush's Iran war plans?

If so, it's time they told the American people what Bush is planning - and do everything in their power to stop him, including impeaching both Bush and Cheney.

If not, it's time they demanded an immediate and full briefing from Bush and Cheney personally - and tell them to their faces that he will be impeached if they proceed.

Update 1: Scarecrow believes Bush's latest request for $50 billion more for Iraq is really for Iran:

Wake up Democrats: you are being asked to fund an aggressive war against Iran. This war will be on your heads. Stop.

He may well be right.