Tracking the possibility of an upcoming air-war with Iran (which might or might not include "bunker busting" nuclear weapons and would be followed by who knows what), I think one of the most discouraging things is that after the past three years I really don't feel like there's much I can do about it.

Glenn Greenwald: Does the debate over Iran matter?

[W]e can have all the lofty and vigorous debates we want over whether a military offensive against Iran is desirable, prudent, disastrous, crazy, etc. But ultimately, nothing we think - or our representatives in Congress think - really matters, because these decisions, under this administration, are "for the President alone to make." We could refuse to authorize this military offensive, or even enact legislation banning it, and none of that would matter in the slightest. It's worth remembering that in our country today, the President is the "sole organ" in all such matters, and he has full, limitless, and un-limitable authority to do whatever he wants.

If the administration really resolves internally - whether for political reasons or bloodlust or some crazed Steyn-like beliefs or any combination of those or other motives - to attack Iran, is there any doubt that they will do that no matter how much opposition there is? One thing is clear - they believe they have the power and authority to do that unilaterally, and that they need no further authorization of any kind beyond the President's will.

This is where we're at. It might be an interesting showdown if Bush went to Congress for some kind of authorization, but short of a truly massive and resounding rebuke, I don't think our "representatives" really have any power here. Given that a strike on Iran would be calculated to maximally improve the GOP's changes of retaining control of the House and Senate, I think the majority party would play along.

As for we the people, well, if we had mass protests that were even larger than the current immigration rallies, maybe something might happen, but I think that kind of turnout is unlikely. Roll that 9/11 b-reel, crank up the fear machine, talk about mushroom clouds and how "they" can't be trusted, and a cricial mass of the citizenry will go along initially. Even if mass protests were to happen, given the nature of the Media (who will likely cheerlead any march to war) and the Bush Administration (which, we must remember, considers protesting citizens a kind of "focus group") and the continuing disconnect between Establishment Democrats and the now-majority of Americans who are (with regard to Iraq at least) anti-war, I think it's doubtful that such demonstrations would do anything to alter the course of events.

It's in pappi's hands, baby. This is what you get.