Swamp Thing, you thought that double jeapordy meant that if a man gets tried for murder he gets his second murder free. I think you should take a good, long mother****ing time researching government, history, law, and logic before you even think about doing political analysis.
A core representative of the Bush administration said they're not invading Iran yet. They have no reason to lie, and it's not Bush's style to change his mind. Ever.
They said they wouldn't invade Iran yet, and they won't invade Iran yet- note the word that comes after "Iran". They currently lack the capacity to mount an attack- almost our entire army is currently holding on by the fingernails to Iraq, a foothold Bush is not going to let go of willingly, and unlike Iraq's army, which has a history of running away every time the other side doesn't consist of unarmed small children, Iran's has a history of using small children, in mass kamikaze attacks swarming over their better-armed enemy, and winning. Because they are crazy and scary and **** **** up Jihad-style.
You lot are making the same stupid mistake the Democrats have made for the past ten years, which is assuming that because the other guys are stupid and evil they're stupider and eviller than you are. Bush is not running around randomly invading because he's a murderous cack-head; he's running around randomly invading because he's a murderous cack-head with a plan to Save the World. He wants to take over the Middle East; that much is clear, it's the details he consistently lies about. He at least superficially appears to imagine that domination of the region will solve all his problems- giving him eventual control over the source of his most evident threat, cowing allies and enemies alike by showing a dramatic reversion of gunboat diplomacy, and aiding the ailing economy by giving us lots of cheap fuel.
Giving up Iraq, which is what mass withdrawal of forces would amount to right now, in no way serves that plan. Invading Iran only to give it up to attack Syria or whoever in a couple years in no way serves that plan. He needs to secure Iraq first- like he keeps saying, work the locals up into the Cold War-style stooges he needs, possibly get a friendly dictator solidly in power depending on how delusional he is about 'spreading freedom'. Once he does that, he will use Iraq as a staging area to invade Iran or Syria, and continue on down the line until he's taken all nations of questionable allegiance in the area.
It's not a bad plan, as plans go. It's not the most foolproof one ever, either, and in politics you'd have to be a fool yourself to not count on the ingenuity of fools. In other words, he won't likely be any more successful than he's been so far. But at least he should be marginally predictable on that front for a little while. It's his domestic policies that have me worried- I have not a clue where he's going with that stuff right now, except that it looks foreboding, and nobody else seems to have much clearer a theory. Which really sucks, 'cause at the end of the day I care considerably more about what happens to me than what happens to some Iraqi.
Oh, and you're all inferior and a lot of poop-heads. Something like that. Yeah.
