And that's not all. I just heard a report on NPR this morning that the US has recently stationed a squadron of F-117 stealth fighter-bombers in South Korea. Since the North Korean foreign minister was just conveniently interviewed recently saying they have nukes and plan to make more, the stage is set for a "disappointing" failure of diplomacy in Korea. So many enemies, so little time before the 2006 elections!

...a senior government official who wishes to remain anonymous

Gee, I wonder if this fellow is talking to our old friend, John Bolton, who has designs on Iran and Syria?

With poll numbers threatening to break into the high 30's,Rove feels the noose tightening around the collective Bush Admin's neck. As other posts have asserted lately, there is likely a "grab all you can before it's too late" mentality setting in. With poll numbers so bad, he's got nothing to lose. We may be looking at the start of the "really" bad part of BushWorld. A madman's grabfest with no penalties to curtail it.

We may be looking at the start of the "really" bad part of BushWorld. A madman's grabfest with no penalties to curtail it.

Man, Jeb! must be pissed.

An assault on North Korea would be psychotic. Talk about stirring up a hornet's nest. Part of the realpolitik of that region is this: Seoul is within artillery range of North Korean emplacements. We hit NK and there could be several hundred thousand dead in Seoul in under an hour.

Not to mention that NK almost certainly has rockets that could deliver a nuke to Japan, and may be able to hit Kahl-i-for-nia.

Iran is off the table. Iraq is a cakewalk next to what going into Iran would look like. Large, well-trained, decently equipped military. Largely homoegeneous population to form a hardcore insurgency. Ain't gonna happen.

Syria is more complex, but it was really stupid to push to get Syrian troops out of Lebanon if we have any thoughts of invading. There is probably more downside to invading Syria than possible upside.

An assault on North Korea would be psychotic

Given a range of solutions for any situation, bushco has a five year history of making the worst possible choice in each and every instance.

So count on it ...

I expect to hear about incursions into Syria by our troops any day now. Much like Cambodia during the Vietnam War. They'll do it to "target insurgents" but the real aim will be to provoke Syria.

The only way to attack N Korea is with a preliminary barrage of nuclear weapons aimed at every significant concentration of military power in the entire country.

The fallout would be bad news for all of N Korea's neigbors, but would that bother Bush? Probably not.

I think that an attack on Iran is more feasible (using Bush "logic") than one on Syria.

Iran is considered a greater threat than Syria in the Middle East by the neocons and Israel. Remember, the neocons live in a fantasy world, and they have convinced themselves that just bombing Iran's nuclear facilities will bring down the mullahs.

I'm not making that last point up.

It has been mentioned in the NYT and Washington Post that the neocons think that the mullah's regime in Iran is on the ropes, and all it will take is one good shove to ignite a popular uprising against them. Somehow, bombing Iran's nuclear facilities will also give us the cover for being bellicose ("The world does not want the mullahs to have the bomb!" will be the war cry).

I'm not for the Iranians having the bomb, but it appears that the Iranians have been pretty smart about scattering and hiding their nuclear facilities. So one bombing raid ain't going to do the trick.

Also, even though younger Iranians don't like the mullahs, this same group thinks that it is a matter of pride and honor for Iran to have nuclear power. The attitude is if the West has it, why can't Iran have it? If we attack Iran, all Iranians will rally around the mullahs. The Iranians would then declare war and invade Iraq.

Which brings us to the neocon fall back position. The moment the Iranians invade Iraq, Bush will declare a state of emergency. Shockingly, we will not have enough troops in Iraq to handle both the insurgency and the Iranian troops, so guess what? We will have to have a draft.

Oh, I know that Bush said that there would be no military draft, but Gosh darn it and golly gee, he never said anything about it with regards to a national emergency (like a sudden war with Iran). Remember, the neocons are GREAT at using crises to move forward politically unpopular measures.

and bolton's job is to fire ElBaradei. Condi is to meet with him Sunday and go over "conditions" for US support. So see they are beginning to put the squeeze on him already.

The first time a bull runs through the China shop, everyone is too shocked to react. However the second time around the bull gets gored.

Robin Wright is hot.

Perfessor:

To quote Jack Sparrow (Pirates of the Caribbean):

You need a girl, mate!

Toby, your take on women is a lot better than it is on Iraq. Steve, as for her reporting, Ms. Wright used to be a pretty good authority on the Middle East, but I'm not sure if she has been in the region so much since Iraq broke out and/or she moved from Hell-A to the belt-way...

I'm betting this isn't the last word from her on the subject and I'd expect a better-informed folo-up in the near future.

The Neocons can clammer for a "preemptive strike" againest Iran, but the the rest of the World will see it for what it is "a sneak attack"