Bush doesn't want to what?
The BBC is asking the same question I did this morning. Not too much new there, but this line certainly caught my eye.
Mark Fitzpatrick, nuclear analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London said: "There is a real possibility that President Bush will feel compelled not to allow this problem to pass to his successor.
Really? Let’s think about that for a moment. Conventional wisdom puts Bush as the President who will probably be passing on more problems to his successor than any other in history, possibly excepting the folks preceding Lincoln, not to mention that anyone with more than a few working brain cells would tell you that launching a military strike against Iran will create worse problems to pass on to his successor, not solve anything.
It's actually that point, and the fact that the people around Bush may be so selfish, so partisan, or so past the point of caring, that they will launch the attack just to ensure that the person coming in after them will have the worst possible hand when they get behind the desk in the oval office, that makes me continue to rate the possibility of an attack quite highly.
When people have nothing left to lose, they will do things normally beyond them, and that rarely benefits the rest of us.
