Why is Bush invading Iran? Simple. He's NOT. The very idea alters the debate.

[L. Coyote]

What do you think? My first impressions about this idea "being floated" are:

What is really going on is, mainly, a huge distraction to stifle debate about his failure in Iraq, and the other issues of criminality, torture, etc. It has many on the left totally off base already, following a now-discredited rumor.

This may also be means of placating or misdirecting critics. Floating the very idea alters the bar of expectations. By not invading Iran (as if the option was actually on the table in the first instance), after people are led to believe the Iran invasion is eminent, then when it does not happen, will Bush be seen as less aggressive?

[EVDebs]

1. In mathematical terms Bush is now into the negative numbers nt

[StClone]

2. Using wrong formula

When we are given parameters asking for rational solutions we see 1 + 1 = 2. When Bush uses his equation it goes something like: 1 + 1 = Look for the worst possible idea and implement it forever.

[jimshoes]

3. Georges' solution for everything

is to stuff 5 pounds of shit into a 3 pound bag. It ruins the bag and there is shit everywhere when he is finished. Then, move on to the next problem. Same solution. Repeat ad infinatum.

[Gloria]

4. Here's a good rundown on the balance between Iran, Iraq & the US

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II05Ak04.html

Summary from the World Media Watch which was posted today at Buzzflash...

Gloria R. Lalumia's World Media Watch for September 5, 2007
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 8:55am. Gloria R. Lalumia

WORLD MEDIA WATCH

Summaries are excerpted from the source articles; the featured article follows the summary section. A recommended "site of the day" will also appear occasionally following the summaries.

1//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong
BASRA CRISIS IS IRAN'S OPPORTUNITY

In his surprise visit to al-Anbar province in Iraq on Monday, US President George W Bush boasted of coalition troops' accomplishments in bringing stability and uprooting the al-Qaeda menace with the help of Sunni tribes. At the same time, the last British soldiers were vacating Basra in the south in what a British paper described as "ignominious defeat". ... Iran's already enormous influence in southern Iraq will likely grow more powerful in the near future, although this will be determined to some extent by political developments in Baghdad. For instance, a failure of the central government to maintain national unity will exacerbate the centrifugal tendencies that have primed southern Iraq as an Iranian sphere of influence. "There are so many different scenarios in Basra and southern Iraq now, all tied to the US-Iran rivalry and it is a sure bet that short of a US military occupation that is not feasible for the overstretched US Army, the scenario of Iran's rising influence will predominate, in other words, Iran is a sure winner of the British retreat," a Tehran analyst told the author. And that means that the US now needs to engage Iran more than in the past to play a constructive role in Iraq. The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has renewed the US's interest in a follow-up discussion with Iran on Iraq's security, perhaps as a sign of recognition of Tehran's growing clout and responsibility in oil-rich southern Iraq. Contrary to some Western analysts, Iran is not interested in turning southern Iraq into its satellite and harvesting the benefits of a de facto partition of the country. Rather, Iran still hopes that a strong, Iran-friendly national government in Baghdad will triumph over the odds piled up against it so that the two neighboring states can eventually remap the region's security calculus. ... Still, few analysts in Tehran are able to hide their rather euphoric reaction to the news of the British withdrawal from Basra, which potentially spells more trouble for those who are rattling sabers at Iran these days. A US military option against Iran is now even less likely in light of the power vacuum in southern Iraq that, if need be, could be utilized by Tehran to undermine the stability of the US's presence in the rest of Iraq.

[AndyTiedye]

5. I Hope You Are Right, But I Don't Think We Are So Lucky

[Babsbrain]

6. I agree 100%

If we attacked Iran, Russia and China would be paying us a visit. That would really put a crimp in the chimp's plans for world oil domination.

[Booster]

7. You may be right, but as Keith Olbermman said, Bush's "playing"

just might provoke another country, any country, into bombing us. Bush is playing with fire and he doesn't play well to begin with. If we do get attacked it will be because of his blustering cause he's a stupid shit.

[L. Coyote]

8. We crossed that threshold with Reagan's bombings. Remember the Marine barracks?

Provocation been going on for too long, since long before this Bush.

[SidDithers]

9. And some posters here have taken the bait...

hook, line and sinker.

Good post. :applause:

Sid

[L. Coyote]

11. Some posters here are probably paid to cast the bait! Such is Internet politics today.

[eridani]

10. His administration is divided on bombing (NOT invading) Iran

Cheney is for, Rice is against. If Condi ever decides she needs to "spend more time with her family" we could be in very deep doodoo.