Going to war over "Kurdistan" is a moot point, since, as I mentioned earlier, the Kurds are smart enough to be satisfied with de facto, not de jure independence---probably for quite a while.

LH, Peter etc--

What's interesting is that you guys are looking at Bush the way the neocons look at Ahmenijad (sp). They say we must attack Iran because he is irrational. You say we have to assume Bush is irrational. I say you cannot plan unless you assume the opponent is rational. That was, after all, the assumption behind the Cold War strategy--on both sides--especially MAD. You may not like it--but it worked.

If you assume your opponent is irrational, you may as well not plan--there's no way you can cover all the possible actions of an irrational opponent.

You guys may just be letting off steam--but, as you may know, I can hold my own with anybody in the Bush-loathing contest--and I still think we should grant him the presumption of rationality. The "higher father" quote seems to give him a healthy push towards crackpot status. But, as the article recently cited points out--that's such a handy excuse for refusing to justify an action that it may just be a Bush defense mechanism--lest his lack of any attempt to reason be made obvious.

Bush is a despicable chickenhawk-worm-- (a new species--no doubt a mutant)--but rational.

At this point he is concerned ONLY with his "legacy". So far, his "legacy" is a hellhole----present-day Iraq. Stirring up the Iranians, uniting them against the US, would only destroy the rather lively Iranian opposition, and empower Ahmenijad--who has other options than nuclear, remember. Turning the MidEast even more against the US would not improve Bush's precious legacy.

It's certainly true that Israel may attack Iran and the US may offer assistance. And that would likely not be impeachable. But the US will not initiate it.

For what it's worth, if I am wrong and the US does attack Iran, Cheney, you can bet, will be in it up to his neck (or above). So if there's no Congressional approval in advance, he will be impeached and convicted right along with his Chickenhawk in Chief.

If you disagree with this analysis, please specify one instance in the past when the US has attacked nuclear facilities. Bringing "nuclear" into the picture raises the stakes--and the punishment for going ahead without Congressional approval---substantially.