Someone with a decoder ring

Not defending Bush here by any means, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if there was a foolish attack on Iran. But doesn't Seymour Hersh just pretty much make up everything he "reports"?

Why are you saying that, Simon? Has he been found guilty of doing that in the past, or it because he writes for The Newyorker? It was an interesting aricle, but I couldn't make any guesses about what Bush might do from it. It's amazing how the Middle East works. It's like every country has a legitimate government who uses religious extremists to do the dirty work. The part that I found to be confusing is this: The Sunni is the group in Iraq that's responsible for the most American deaths and isn't getting with the new program. Iran is being blamed for arming and helping the insurgency. Iran is predominantly Shiite. It seems to me that Iran would be working with the Shiite militias and Maliki & not Sunni. The Saudis don't seem to be too keen on an attack by America on Iran. I think that we'll probably play the Middle Eastern game a lot longer. We'll arm the terrorist organizations who are willing to bomb our enemies and hope that they don't come back and bite us in the butt (like they usually do) years from now. My favorite quotes: It s not that we don t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it s who they throw them at Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran. Bandar is already seen in the Arab world as being too close to the Bush Administration. We have two nightmares, the former diplomat told me. For Iran to acquire the bomb and for the United States to attack Iran. I d rather the Israelis bomb the Iranians, so we can blame them. If America does it, we will be blamed.

Every time I hear BushCo say "We have no plans to attack Iran", I think of the Luckovich cartoon that has Cheney behind him chortling "Plans are for losers."