ratbastid

Thanks for your elaboration, otto. I (and probably others) can now see where you're coming from, and we can now discuss that. I'm sorry if you felt attacked by my request. It really was just a request, because your ideas are interesting and outside what I've heard others say, but from the small, fragmentary way you'd presented them, I couldn't get my hands around quite what you were saying. Now that you've laid it out, I can see where you're coming from and the questions you're asking, and we can now have an interesting conversation about it. So thanks.

I actually think there's LESS going on than meets the eye. I think Bush is a cowboy who wanted to join the pantheon of war kings and who didn't have the brains or cross-aisle political savvy to accomplish it. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Iranian weapons research ceased roughly the same time we invaded Iraq, but I'm not sold on the cause-and-effect you're speculating about.

I think the Bush reaction to this "news" ("Well, I still see a threat there. Just because they haven't been building weapons for four years just like they've been saying, it changes nothing--war with Iran is still on the table!") shows that this isn't the master stroke of some grand global chess game. In my view, Bush is still a little boy playing toy soldiers.