I have heard from folks around DC(whom I suspect know about such things) that the president will not leave the White House without striking Iran to deny it use of nuclear weapons.
I’m not much of a fan of the “Strike Iran at end of term and let the next guy deal with the fallout” strategy.
Fallout is particularly apt in this context.
The alternative, waiting until these Islamic crazies actually have nukes and can use them, is unthinkable.
Near zero modulus of authenticity.
Well, that would be a sure fire way to destroy what is left of the GOP.
Anyone else notice these kinds of pronouncements are made once every six months or so?
Then Seymour Hersh can finally be right for a change. He’s the world’s greatest writer. /s
And monkeys may fly out of my butt.
That is similar to a scenario that I’ve pulled right out of the air. The Bush administration concentrates on the surge strategy in Iraq and merely keeps the pressure on Iran through November 2008, forgoing action against Iran in order not to harm Republican prospects with a war-weary electorate. In November the election brings what it brings and then Team Bush has ten weeks free and clear to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. This is plenty of time and with a Pres. Fred Thompson waiting in the wings could be done with complete coordination with the incoming administration. If there’s a ‘Rat President-elect, well what’s so bad about forcing them to face reality right out of the gate?
Bush may strike Iran near end of term.... or he won’t. It’s definitely going to be one of those.
Every illegal alien in this country should be given a 3 year term in the Middle east cleaning out the terrorists and converting them to Christianity. Then citizenship.
Bush has said he will not allow Iranian nukes, time will tell. I wonder what Israel is planning.