"But he wouldn't do that." That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn't want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.
It should be obvious, especially since GWB has dismissed it as "wild speculation" that he might just be in the mood to nuke a few million people in order to postpone an accounting for his sins, political and personal. Any sensible review of history would agree, as indeed, John Stewart hilariously outlined last night. Anytime the Bush administration dismisses some rumor as unfounded, it's time to call your bookie and bet the other way.
Current polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power. This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics.
Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't. Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again?
I would not bet my ass he won't. And, well, that's precisely what you are doing if you let this concern slide on by.
Betting your ass, your assets, and those of your potentially radioactive, mutated grandthings.
tag: Donald Rumsfeld, manifestly insane, mushroom cloud, lies, bunker buster, Paul Krugman, bush, protest, tactical nuclear weapons, george bush