A prelude to war: What's really behind Bush's Iran move

Attytood

[...] How could Bush stage an attack on Iran without the authorization of a skeptical, Democratic Congress?

Today, the White House has solved that pesky problem in one fell swoop. By explicitly linking the Iranian elite guard into the post 9/11 "global war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush's lawyers would certainly now argue that any military strike on Iran is now covered by the October 2002 authorization to use military force in Iraq, as part of their overly sweeping response to the 2001 attacks.

This has clearly been the thinking for some time, particularly with talk -- unfulfilled, of course -- by some Democrats on Capitol Hill of either revoking the 2002 authorization or placing explicit curbs on attacking Iran.

I hope Bush - and Cheney in particular - come to a bad end very soon, for if they do not, we surely will.

Attacking Iran is orders of magnitude a worse idea than invading Iraq, as bad as that was. The Iranians might actually kick the crap out of us and kill many thousands of our guys on their own turf. We can leave Iraq on our feet, but we might leave Iran feet first.

Worst case scenario is that the madmen in charge may use nuclear weapons against a nation that poses no nuclear threat to us in an attempt to stave off defeat.

The only other time nuclear weapons have been used was to minimize casualties and hasten the surrender of an already defeated nation with no power of retaliation whose leaders were in denial. A nuclear attack on a non-nuclear nation this time is gonna bite us on the ass. If not one way, then another.