And by the way, any attack on Iran without Congressional approval will be enough to bring about Bush's impeachment, conviction, and removal. If anything, it will be more, not less likely, if he attacks just to try to cut off what he sees as Iranian opposition to his war in Iraq, rather than to nip Iran's nuclear ambitions in the bud. But any attack by Bush on Iran--for any reason-- will result not just in the loss of Iraq, with large numbers of new US dead, but also result in nothing but Bush's own distinction as the first US president to be impeached, convicted and removed. And this at a time when his true believers-- (that dwindling group)-- are starting to claim victory in Iraq (yet again), based on the fact that deaths, both Iraqi and especially US (and "Coalition") have temporarily dipped.

Bush supporters of course ignore a few inconvenient facts. First, that as I've pointed out, "Kurdistan" is both the model and the agent of Iraq's breakup--and that breakup is continuing--look at the oil deals "Kurdistan" is setting up, contrary to Maliki's (and US) wishes). Second, that, as I predicted in January, al-Sadr has told his forces to lay low for several months. Though he certainly does not have complete control of his "army", contrary to Teribus' delusions, he does have enough to cause a temporary decline in violent deaths in Iraq. But this of course is a temporary tactical move on al-Sadr's part. All he has to do is wait a bit, and US forces will start withdrawing. Bush has even admitted this.

But attacking Iran, Bush would be throwing away any chance for progress in Iraq--which is virtually impossible anyway-- and ensuring his own premature removal from office. (And Cheney would be involved in this up to his neck--enough so he would also disappear from the scene.)

Any other belief is just a self-inflicted Leftist nightmare.

If anybody disagrees, I'd sincerely like to see the counterarguments, with logic and facts. So far, I've seen none.