Well, the world also doesn't need Korea II, either--but I wouldn't rule it out.

We don't have enough troops for Iran.

Nice post, CA Pol Junkie.

Certainly, one of the reasons that both N. Korea AND Iran are working as fast as they can to build up their nuclear arsenal is because they know that Bush has painted a bullseye on them. Our glorious leader has set off the 21st century arms race.

And, just because we don't have enough troops, I would not necessarily trust that fact that would defer Bush. He is a true believer and doesn't necessarily use facts to set his agenda.

I'm not so sure that I would include George Will in the list of thinking conservatives. His comments sound to me more like a friendly reminder to the Bushies that they need to be better prepared with their "evidence" than they were for Iraq.

As for not enough troops, the US is trying to buy occupiers for Iraq from countries like India and Fiji to free up US troops for something.

And, just because we don't have enough troops, I would not necessarily trust that fact that would defer Bush. He is a true believer and doesn't necessarily use facts to set his agenda.

That's precisely my thinking, Mary. We should not assume that Bush won't attack just because it doesn't make any sense. Did it make sense to spend $180 billion (war + 5 year occupation) and hundreds of U.S. lives attacking Iraq, when it truly posed no threat to the United States? I'm not taking it for granted that common sense will prevail this time. With a new poll showing Americans supporting using force (in whatever form) to block Iran from using nuclear arms, the American people are vulnerable to the scenario we just went through on Iraq.

I was struck by the arrogance and the implied violence of Bush's recent Iran statements, even though the process for exposing Bush as a lying felon with blood on his hands for the Iraq war is well under way.

I think, but do not know, of course, that cooler heads will soon prevail. The administration will have enough on its hands just to get re-elected.

I don't buy those scenarios where Bush uses a war in an election year after all the wmd lies have been exposed, frankly. It's just too negative. We cannot be tethered to the reactionary framework of 9/11 forever. An alternative has to emerge.

Thank you very much for the post, CA Pol Junkie.

I'm not sure that Rove is going to get to use another war so blatantly toward reselection. According to this article:

"... the Bush administration must sharpen and deepen its commitment to making Iraq a better and safer place, conclude former UN Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering and former Defense and Energy Secretary James R. Schlesinger, co-chairs of the Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored Independent Task Force on post-war Iraq."

It's beginning to look like Poppy's friends are stepping in. This may be the alternative paradox refers to above. Maybe they feel that W's Perpetual War is bad for business and want him reined in ASAP.

In this article, the qualifications of the critics is cited:

"Pickering, the highest-ranking US diplomat when he retired from the foreign service in the mid-1990s, served as former president George H W Bush's ambassador to the UN during the first Gulf War in 1991. Schlesinger, who served in several cabinet positions under a number of Republican presidents, was an outspoken supporter of the decision to go to war in Iraq and has long been close to Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, who is responsible for US military operations in Iraq and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) headed by the civilian administrator, L Paul Bremer."

They went public deliberately. It might also have something to do with this change of heart by Rumsfeld:

"WASHINGTON: Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is discussing the possibility of the United States organizing a standing international peacekeeping force that could be dispatched to trouble spots around the globe. The force would operate outside the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and would include thousands of US Army troops trained and permanently assigned to peacekeeping work. Such an undertaking would represent a major reversal by the Bush administration, which came into office deeply opposed to tying up US military forces in international peacekeeping operations."

The change is far too abrupt to be just a coincidence.

My cynical side says that one of the reasons this government might want to get an international peacekeeping force is so they can free up the US troops for more war-making. Sigh.