War with Iran

This hot-off-the-presses piece in the Guardian makes a nice sequel to the preceding post. Evidence is mounting that Bush will go to war with Iran.

The analysis offers new information and makes a persuasive case -- until we reach this jaw-dropping bit toward the finale:

A new war may not be as politically disastrous in Washington as many believe. Scott Ritter, the whistleblowing former UN weapons inspector, points out that few in the Democratic party will stand in the way of the destruction of those who conducted the infamous Tehran embassy siege that ended Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Sorry, Scott, but even our torpid Democratic Party leaders will surely object to the notion of two budget-busting wars -- especially since personnel requirements would necessitate a draft.

For an embattled President Bush, combating the mullahs of Tehran may be a useful means of diverting attention from Iraq and reestablishing control of the Republican party prior to next year's congressional elections. From this perspective, even an escalating conflict would rally the nation behind a war president.

Sort of like stepping on a tack to "divert attention" from a toothache.

As for the succession to President Bush, Bob Woodward has named Mr Cheney as a likely candidate, a step that would be easier in a wartime atmosphere.

Oh, come off it. Right now, Cheney's about as popular as habanero-flavored diarrhea.