I identified with the brick wall that Linus and Charlie Brown were leaning on during their most Dostoevskyish conversations.

Last thursday, that wall was bugged via NSA sattelite. But no worries, it was a bipartisan "decision"!

I loved that wall.

I also love some of the borders around the sides of the 1957 cartoons.

One of my favorite cartoons is the one where Lucy takes 59, 000 toys away from Linus, then tosses him a rubber band and says "here have fun with this. So a few panels later hes having lost of fun with the rubber band , and Lucy comes back and yells

"NOT THAT MUCH FUN"

Kind of reminds me of the Corporate Media coverage of the Democratic primaries this time around.

As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"

He added, "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."

Senator John Kerry echoed this sentiment on May 29, 2004, when he told the Washington Post that the Bush Administration has not "been tough on the [Iran] issue … which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and again just like I said with North Korea, you have to keep your eye on the target."

In fact, while campaigning for president, Dean contended that President Bush had been far too soft on Iran. In a March appearance on CBS' Face The Nation, Dean even went so far as to say that "[President Bush] is beholden to the Saudis and the Iranians."

Foreign Policy expert Stephen Zunes wrote of the Democrats' platform in Foreign Policy in Focus on August 12, 2004:

"One possible target for American forces under a Kerry administration is Iran. The platform implies an American right to such military intervention by stating that 'a nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies.' No concern is expressed, however, about the already-existing nuclear arsenals of Iran's neighbor Pakistan or of nearby Israel. Iran has called for a nuclear-free zone in the region, which the Democrats appear to reject, apparently because it would require America's regional allies to get rid of their nuclear arsenals as well. The Democrats, like the Republicans, believe that instead of pushing for multilateral and verifiable arms control treaties, the United States can effectively impose a kind of nuclear apartheid, unilaterally determining which countries can have nuclear weapons and which countries cannot."

So are we really supposed to believe the Democrats will ever offer up any significant opposition to Bush's military dabbling in Iran?

Not unless by "opposition to" you mean "support for."