I hear the rumblings again. I heard them in 2002 and the build-up in early 2003 before the Bush/Cheney warmongers invaded Iraq and set off that misbegotten war that is only really ending now that our current President has ordered the last troops out by New Years.

They lied about WMDs and other bullshit in order to whip up support a decade ago. I think they are doing it again.

Now they want to take on Iran.

Here's the Gingrich take: (From Michael Crowley @Time)

"Suddenly, Newt Gingrich’s opinion about this has become quite significant. But his position is a little tricky to pin down. Appearing on CNN last week, for instance, Gingrich told Wolf Blitzer that if the Israelis were to call and notify him about an imminent military strike, his first response would be: “How can we help you?” He continued:

An Iranian nuclear weapon is potentially a second holocaust. Israel is a very urban country. Two or three nuclear weapons wipes out most of the Jews who live in Israel. I believe Ahmadinejad would do it in a [inaudible]. When you have people put on body suits to walk into a crowded mall to blow themselves up, you better believe they put on a nuclear weapon. So, I think the world needs to understand, Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon. All the world can decide is whether they help us peacefully stop it or they force us to use violence, but Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon."
(Read more: https://swampland.time.com/2011/12/13/newt-gingrich-contemplates-war-with-iran/#ixzz1gSXT84ds)

and...

"Instead, Gingrich called–as he has before–for a combination of measures to topple the Iranian regime, including harsher economic sanctions such as cutting off Iran’s gasoline supplies, and other “political, psychological, and diplomatic” measures. But he also went a step farther, suggesting that violence might make sense after all, so long as its not focused solely on nuclear targets: “Unless they unilaterally disarm their entire system, we are going to replace their regime. We’re ideally going to do it non-militarily, but we are not going to tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon.” The implications of that position–”militarily” replacing the Iranian regime–are even more dramatic. Does Newt really entertain the idea of going to war with Iran to change its government and somehow install a friendlier one? It seems so. Gingrich he has said previously that any strike on Iran’s nuclear program should be undertaken “only as a first step towards replacing the regime.”

This leaves Gingrich with a position that is perhaps unique, and quite dramatic. He’s skeptical about military action to take out Iran’s nuclear complex. But he thinks war with Iran to replace its regime might be necessary. Amid the freak show of the Republican presidential campaign, that’s a sobering reminder of the underlying stakes."

I have one question for Newt:

WHO WILL PAY FOR THIS WAR?

After all, we haven't paid for the last three wars yet.