In winning the debate over Iran, there is only one talking point you need to remember: Iran is not building any nukes. All of the scientific evidence points to this fact. Iran does not have the capacity to make centrifuges for its own reactor, let alone make weapons-grade uranium.

Donald Rumsfeld talked about the role of the Bush administration in history in his op-ed yesterday. But given the fact that Iraq had no WMD's, given the fact that there is no crisis in Social Security, and given the fact that Iran is not building any nukes, the Bush administration will go down in history as the administration that cried wolf.

Even as the Republicans in the House scramble to catch up to Democrats and block the Dubai Port deal under tremendous pressure from constituents, and even as the fight continues in the Senate, the White House hasn't backed down from it's position that it will veto any bill blocking the sale.

So here's a question: why?  It's certainly not the charges of racism the administration has tossed around.  It's not a concern that American policy might not seem "fair."

According to an analyst at an energy trading firm, the reason the Bush administration is so adamant about the ports deal comes down to a single word: Iran.

The Bush administration is in a state of collapse. Around the country, people are starting to talk about the need to impeach and remove Bush from office. Many of these people, like the one-time Republicans described here are, like William Buckley, totally lost and devoid of answers. Especially in Red or Purple areas, everybody will know who the resident liberal is - even if you have never said a word about it.

Last year when Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA), a twice decorated Vietnam War veteran, suggested that we begin to remove the troops from Iraq because the mission had soured, the Bush administration reacted in an interesting way. Instead of listening to the long time military man, an expert in military planning, they and their noise machine minions smeared the Congressman by questioning the circumstances surrounding the awarding of the two Purple Hearts he received for acts of valor in Vietnam.

This was the continuation of an extended media campaign that began with the the dismissal of Cindy Sheehan's anti-war protests. Essentially they dragged out the old war-horse, "We don't cut and run," meme and implied that to set a deadline for withdrawal would be somehow treasonous. Cindy Sheehan and Jack Murtha were uttered in the same breath as their anti-american strawman, Michael Moore.

Well, it seems the Bush Administration is going to have to include the entire US army serving in Iraq on their list of anti-american traitors. This, from Nicholas Kristof.

A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq -- and soon.

The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?"

Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush's position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw "immediately."

Perhaps we can ship them to Gitmo and purchase the United Arab Emirates' army as a replacement.

Try the United States Coast Guard

How many times have we been told that this deal would not affect security at the ports, that the security would still be under the control of the Coast Guard?  Yeah, well, it turns out that the Coast Guard is worried about the deal.

The Coast Guard warned that "intelligence gaps" prevented a broad assessment of any security risks posed by the takeover of some U.S. shipping terminals by a United Arab Emirates company, a Senate hearing revealed Monday.

While Republicans try to launch the "anybody agin' the deal is a racist" attack, the Coast Guard has more serious concerns.

"There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential merger," a Coast Guard report on the potential deal stated.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities."

So now the very people who are charged with security, are also noting that the DP World deal was not adequately evaluated and may represent a real risk.  That should put a dent in a few talking points.