Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 25, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

LATEST CHENEY INSANITY RUMOR....Should a responsible blogger pass along bizarre, unsubstantiated rumors like the one I'm about to pass along? Probably not. But here it is anyway.

Steve Clemons, relying on "multiple sources," says that Dick Cheney is slowly coming to the sad realization that President Bush may be a wimp who can't be trusted to start a shooting war with Iran. If that turns out to be the case, Cheney figures that the only option left will be to somehow goad Iran into attacking us first, thus making war inevitable. According to Steve's sources, a senior aide on Cheney's national security team has been making the rounds of conservative think tanks to map out Cheney's plan:

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy...could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf — which just became significantly larger — as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

Well, OK. But wouldn't a plan like this work only if it were kept absolutely secret? Wouldn't peddling it around at "lunch and dinner gatherings" defeat the whole purpose? And exactly what does Cheney supposedly think Iran would counter-strike against? A carrier group? Bases in Kuwait? Seriously? And wouldn't the Israelis be a wee bit nervous about acting as Cheney's cat's paw, especially in an operation deliberately designed to do little actual damage?

In other words, it's ridiculous to think that anyone would be contemplating something like this. But then again, Dick Cheney isn't just anyone. I wonder if he's a fan of 24?

Kevin Drum 1:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (55)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

If Cheney shot Bush, then he'd President and could order the attack on Iran himself!

Oh, wait ... forget I ever said that. We don't want to give him ideas ...

Posted by: Steve Sailer on May 25, 2007 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

Somebody should remind Bush not to accept any invitations from Cheney to go dove hunting.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on May 25, 2007 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah. Maybe that "accident" out grousing was just a stage setter, showing that Cheney is a careless hunter. When he gets invited to the ranch he'll be sure to carry a heavier load.

Seriously, though, it shouldn't be too hard for a good journalist to find out what Cheney might be pedalling around. And call him on it.

Posted by: notthere on May 25, 2007 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

There was a rumor in DC circles that the pretzel chocking incident (which was the explanation for why Bush had a huge shiner on his forehead) was actually caused from Cheney shoving Bush in anger, and Bush losing his balance.

Bush went with the I,CLAVDIVS 'I'm an idiot' explanation because it would draw the least amount of follow up examination (well, if he's admitting to something that stupid, it must be true).

Doubt it, but the sad thing is that it's more plausible for Bush/Cheney than almost any other president/VP combo in the last century outside of Kennedy/Johnson.

Posted by: Augustus on May 25, 2007 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

Whether it's Cheney alone or Cheney plus Bush, something's afoot. The "surge" (which few US commanders thought was needed in Iraq), Cheney's recent trip, and these war games that the US just started off the coast of Iran all seem to suggest that an attack is around the corner.

Posted by: JS on May 25, 2007 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

Pumphead Dick is NOT a actual human any more so think accordingly

"Politics is just high school with guns and more money" - Frank Zappa

Posted by: daCascadian on May 25, 2007 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

Most of the administration's and Cheney's most outrageous lies have been right out in the open, available for anyone to see, flaunted, even. Cheney's arrogance is monumental. It's entirely in keeping with his personality and his history to make the Iran war push a public campaign. ``24'' looks to HIM for guidance, not the other way around.

Posted by: secularhuman on May 25, 2007 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINK

IIRC, Cheney actually is a fan of 24.

Posted by: AP on May 25, 2007 at 2:52 AM | PERMALINK

This would certainly explain the expression on Bush's face the morning of 9/11/01 as Andy Card whispered into his ear that America is under attack.

The official descriptions of Bush's expression have never sat well with me. It always seemed to me that he was paralyzed, sure, but he was also thinking something like, "That sonofabitch (Cheney) went ahead and did it!"

Posted by: avatrix on May 25, 2007 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

This is why I always thought that a statement that Bush can't go to war in Iran without Congressional approval was more important than benchmarks or timelines in Iraq.

Posted by: Anthony on May 25, 2007 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINK

He's a war profiteer. And a fucking ghoul.

Posted by: merlallen on May 25, 2007 at 6:31 AM | PERMALINK

Personally, I am convinced that Cheney, Bush--and most of the Republican crop for 2008 evidently--don't realize that "24" is fiction.


Posted by: PTate in FR on May 25, 2007 at 6:56 AM | PERMALINK

If Iran wanted to retaliate against the US, it could launch a massive missile attack against the Green Zone. Iran has thousands of very sophisticated long range missiles.

If Iran did this, they would guarantee themselves war with the US. They would have to be willing to sustain enormous damage with the hopes that the US could be lured into 5 more years of self-destructive engagement in the middle east.

Posted by: -asx- on May 25, 2007 at 7:37 AM | PERMALINK

A "24" fan wouldn't just plot to provoke a war against Iran, but against "three Middle Eastern countries." (2nd season)

He'd also arrange to have Air Force One shot down by a hijacked sealth fighter, so as to incapacitate the president and invoke the 25th Amendment. (4th season)

Posted by: Grumpy on May 25, 2007 at 8:25 AM | PERMALINK

Bush/Cheney - Best Co-Consuls since Marc Anthony and Octavius - Time to go to Egypt, Dick.

And Bush as Augustus can reign and reign and reign.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on May 25, 2007 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

The only problem with that analogy from above, is that Marc Antony really was a warrior - Hot headed and a poor politician, but, he fought well on the battle field - Not, just having fellow Frat boys do your dirty work or acting macho on a field of birdees.

But, then Octavius was a poor fighter, but a supurb politician and he was the one who prevailed.

Posted by: stupid git on May 25, 2007 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

Someone once said "The vice-presidency isn't worth a warb bucket of spit." He was right, Cheney isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.

Posted by: tomeck on May 25, 2007 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

-asx- better idea than carpeting the green zone- if Iran really wanted to bog down the US for a decade at great loss to them: why not pop some of those several hundred sunburns they are rumored to have into the US fleet in the Gulf? The green zone would incur many civilian casualties and reeks too much of Hezbollah impotently raining rockets on Golan tawdry. But a US Carrier battle group? Pure military, and no one has touched one since maybe Leyte? The stuff legends are made of.

i should make it clear that i think this would be a stupid and murderous thing to do because the aftermath would be bloody for Iran, but if you really want to tweak the US, hit the very symbols of power projection

Posted by: Northzax on May 25, 2007 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney a fan of 24? He fucking thinks he's Jack Bauer!

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on May 25, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Northzax: are you for the attack of the U.S.? I'm confused as to why you're suggesting ways in which Iran can really tweak us.


Curious? Check out Christopher Ruddy

Posted by: ShelbSpeaks on May 25, 2007 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

Are Cheney and the other Neo Cons trying to leak enough evidence of belligerent intent toward Iran to undermine diplomacy and provoke Iran into supporting Shi'a killing U.S. personnel in Iraq?

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on May 25, 2007 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

To quote crazy dolpin lady Peggy Noonan, is it irresponsible not to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Posted by: Stefan on May 25, 2007 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

To quote crazy dolpin lady Peggy Noonan, is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Posted by: Stefan on May 25, 2007 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

There was a piece some years back by a guy who wrote a song for the Dead and then dealt with Cheney over environmental and power issues. He thinks that Cheney--always the smartest guy in the room--is trying to remake American power projection into the Tony Soprano mold--a veneer of reason and amity covering a seething cauldron of murderous rage, capable of instant provocation and violent reaction. You know, "Don't F*ck With the USA", a soon-to-be-written song. He may be right, except that Cheney is able to project force only by second or third hand; he may have that magic mirror in his office that shows him Lee Marvin when he looks into it, but the rest of us see John Fiedler with his undies in a bunch. So in addition to that whole smartest guy in the room with a mad on, there's the constant need to compensate for a lack of real guts.

Posted by: Steve Paradis on May 25, 2007 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK
Well, OK. But wouldn't a plan like this work only if it were kept absolutely secret?

No, it would only work if no one who Bush trusted implicitly told him of the plan: if it leaked, but people loyal, or at least sympathetic, to Cheney in Bush's inner circle could convince Bush that the reports were hostile fabrications from his enemies in the press, the left, and even within the government, there would be no problem.

Since they haven't seemed to have trouble selling Bush on that kind of line about, well, everything else, I hardly see why anyone should assume they would fail to do so about rumors of Cheney manipulating him into war.

Posted by: cmdicely on May 25, 2007 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

a John Fiedler reference? What is this? Dennis Miller tryouts?

Posted by: glenn on May 25, 2007 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

But a US Carrier battle group? Pure military, and no one has touched one since maybe Leyte? The stuff legends are made of.

Of course the Iranians might "think outside the box" -- a suicide bomber and a powerboat and a nuke from a few miles out. The Japanese in 1945 were experimenting with manned torpedos. Iran's been bragging about their supply of suicide bombers --

Posted by: Ray Waldren on May 25, 2007 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Was this a rejected script for the 2001 Comedy Central sitcom parody "That's My Bush!"? Sure reads like it.

Posted by: Vincent on May 25, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

>"make American power projection into... a veneer of reason and amity covering a seething cauldron of murderous rage, capable of instant provocation and violent reaction"

I think this is probably too close to the truth for comfort. Unfortunately, the "I'm a psycho with a gun" strategy only works against rational players.

Posted by: Buford on May 25, 2007 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Billy Bob has a point.

Half+ of this country has griped for 7 years. It hasn't stopped Bush or Cheney's forwarding their personal, party, or oil agendas, using every tool including war.

Under the cat's paw of justice, a few of their administration have gone down, but that is collateral damage. The only key person was Rummie and he just resigned. Aides and underlings have meant nothing to them.

The GOP has got this country by the short hairs and the Republicans are all sticking together (after all, the GOP good old boy system would rather support a lying Rep than any Democrat apparently).

Bush has another year, but what if the next president is another GOP-programmed monster of this same ilk? Do we sit around and wait out that one too?

The antics of this administration didn't end with Elections 2006, it very well might not end with Elections 2008 either.

What we have in WA is a very serious situation and even the most serious bloggers across the web are still indulging in coffee shop chat, albeit very witty and intelligent coffee shop chat.

I for one would desperately like be in on discussions about how to push cooler heads into the war room before Bush has nukes flying around the planet. Cheney is not what I would call a cooler head, I believe he is behind the more devious of Bush's antics.

Can we mass-contact someone of merit to stand up for the rest of us, like our Ghandi or MLK or a power figure to rally the US. Maybe Lee Iacocca (yes, I know what he is but he also knows what Bush really is)

Or has blogging become of the same weight as our illustrious Congress, talk but no real impact on the critical issues? And I mean that with utter respect.


Posted by: Billy Bob's Best Girl on May 25, 2007 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Billy Bob has a point, look at this intelligent, well written post over at Town Hall. Political Animal posters, take heed. This is what sober thought is all about:

"Mark my words: if this apostate government in DC, that is spitting on and mocking our Constitution and using it to wipe their collective hindsides, tries to punt its way out of this, WHITE CONSERVATIVE MALES WILL BE TAKING IT BACK WITH A VENGEANCE!!! YOU HAVE NOT HEARD OR SEEN THE LAST OF US DESPITE HOW MUCH LIBERALS WOULD LIKE US TO JUST GO AWAY! When DC is politically overthrown some grand and glorious day, lawyers and politicians will be the first to go to jail for crimes of TREASON against the United States!!! The Democratic Party will be outlawed like the Communist Party was in the days of the USSR. When America goes to war again, the Liberal pantywaists in Hollywood and the media will be collectively muffled as FDR did to these fruitcakes during WWII and all TRAITORS will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The divine order with men, not pantywaists, in charge will be re-established, and America will again be better than ever. It will finally be MORNING IN AMERICA again instead of this NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE."

Posted by: botecelli on May 25, 2007 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

I'm wondering who these Generals are who are willing to accept orders from the Vice President AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PRESIDENT. If you have orders in hand that say "don't bomb Iran" and Cheney shows up and tells you he's in charge, and you should start bombing, the proper response is to laugh and tell him to go break some ties in the Senate.

I think a more likely explanation is that Bush wants to bomb Iran but is so embattled right now over Iraq, the only way to sell this is to spin it like Cheney cagily outsmarted him.

Posted by: What What on May 25, 2007 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

This war is for the purpose they can never admit: a permanent major American military presence, critical to the enduring empire. PNAC.

That's why Cheney & Rumsfeld put us there, and that's why we're still sending more.

Posted by: chance on May 25, 2007 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

When DC is politically overthrown some grand and glorious day, lawyers and politicians will be the first to go to jail for crimes of TREASON against the United States!!! " botecelli

You hit it. You think that isn't what could happen? Aren't we wiggling around in just that sort of mud over 8 US Attorneys? It has already happened. What you posted is the mentality of the persons the rest of us are up against. And those that enable extremists like above are in power and setting the example.

Sober thought is going out the window. A good segment of our country is STILL following the nut in the White House, every good cult leader has a following. Talk Radio is out there humping the cult message, herns are posting it all over blogs, cult members fight rational factual thought on every blog I read.

It no longer is about the quality of character, it is about the quality of the excuse.

Posted by: Billy Bob's Best Girl on May 25, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

When you factor in the weird and multiple corruption stories coming out of the Israeli leadership over the last year with the story that the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah was built primarily on intelligence from the Office of the Vice President, it seems an inevitable conclusion that Dick has their balls in his pocket.

If Olmert resists him, who knows what appalling thing about him will find it's way into the Daily Mirror?

Posted by: cld on May 25, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

I think this gets included with the other recent scary leaks and blustery actions wrt to Iran (the President's directive to the CIA, Gulf Naval maneuvers), all of which are intended to frame the negotiating space.

Didn't Nixon approve of the "they're crazy enough to actually do it!" posture?

Posted by: Model 62 on May 25, 2007 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

I'm simply saying the comments here are the most emotionally and intellectually hysterical I personally read. Posted by: Billy Bob Shranzburg

No wonder we got divorced, Billy Bob. Here I thought you were actually advocating the promotion of a more serious discussion about the critical issues by the very intelligent and sincere minded folks that blog here, and you were calling everyone hysterical.

Sorry to everyone else. :)

Posted by: Billy Bob's Ex Wife on May 25, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Seriously, though, it shouldn't be too hard for a good journalist to find out what Cheney might be pedalling around. And call him on it. Posted by: notthere

Since when does Cheney do interviews with "good journalists"? Helen Thomas is probably the only DC veteran with the balls to ask anyone in the administration a meaningful question. The rest do awfully good imitations of Jeff Gannon/Guckert pitching underhand (or "throwing like a girl"?).

Posted by: JeffII on May 25, 2007 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin is suffering from a fundamental misconception about how the US attacks other countries.

We don't wait for them to attack us, or try to bait them into doing so- the concensus is manufactured, and people make up in their own minds the reasons they need to go along with it.

The only thing that is a secret about this process is the desire of the American public not to know what's happening. People who are actually watching events know already that the US wants to attack Iran and that some pretext will be invented if it is necessary to stampede the masses.

Look at what's happening right now with Venezuela- a propaganda campaign suggesting that revoking the license of one television station to broadcast through the air (but leaving intact their satellite and cable broadcasts) is somehow censorship, while in neighboring Colombia, Uribe's murder campaign against journalists makes him the champion of free speech and our "best friend" in the hemisphere. Any number of supposedly liberal and informed journalists will confirm how well manufacturing concensus works by muttering about how Chavez is a "thug", while they laud Uribe for "ending the violence".

Even recognizing how the process works immediately marks one as a "Chomskyite", as though there were something demented about using the language of one of the century's great linguists to describe what's being done with the language.

Suitably abashed by our marginalization, those of us who have seen it all happen before can only watch as the process grinds on. The "realists" who believe we must maintain our "credibility" as a "world leader" will do what they want to do. And when they do it, you will be told what to think. If you don't want to be a "Chomskyite", you'll make up some reason to believe what you're told.

Posted by: serial catowner on May 25, 2007 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Am I the only one who finds this story utterly unremarkable? Cheney has been engaged in turf battles with the so-called "moderates" in the White House since Powell was around. The ONLY thing that makes this story even interesting is that Clemons's source, who is no doubt a member of the Condi faction (perhaps Powell himself), chooses to characterize Cheney's conduct as "insubordination." Beyond that, there is nothing surprising about Cheney relying on his huge Office of VP, connections at AEI, and conservative Israeli friends to try and start a war with Iran.

The only thing that impresses me about this story is the willingness of the Condi faction to use such strong language in attacking Cheney. Everything else is...well...par for the course for Crazy Dick.

Posted by: owenz on May 25, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

I can imagine Cheney thwarted by Bush, shopping the idea to Israel. What I can't imagine is what Cheney would stand to gain from the activity. Profits for Halliburton? Small potatoes. The oil? Look at how that worked out with Iraq. I guess he would hope to drive oil prices through the roof and send the US into a deep recession.

Unless I am missing something war with Iran makes no economic sense. All you wise ones, please tell me what Cheney would hope to gain.

Posted by: Ron Byers on May 25, 2007 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Quick technical note: Modern U.S. carriers have armored flight decks and are very resistant to rockets, shell fire, etc. This assumes they are on alert and all their own bombs, rockets, and freshly fueled aircraft are put away.

US aircraft carriers in WWII did not have armored flight decks and were very vulnerable. Unlike their US equivalents, Royal Navy carriers with armored flight decks proved largely immune to Kamikazes when they were used of off Formosa and Japan in the waning days of WWII. The standard command after a Kamikaze strike was “sweepers, man your brooms” as all they had to do was remove the wreckage from the undamaged flight deck.

Posted by: fafner1 on May 25, 2007 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Unless I am missing something war with Iran makes no economic sense. All you wise ones, please tell me what Cheney would hope to gain. Posted by: Ron Byers

But war with Iraq made no economic sense either. The government doesn't really have the scratch to make it all that profitable even for the firms that supply munitions and material. I heard an interview with a recently retired major general on NPR this week, and he said most of the equipment used in Iraq has been destroyed, is not functioning or way overdue for major service.

Then there is little profit in oil servicing either as it's simply too dangerous to do the work, though Wolfie assured us that increased oil revenues for Iraq would pay for our belligerence with more than enough left over to rebuild the country (after we destroyed most of its infrastructure for a second time in a decade).

Posted by: JeffII on May 25, 2007 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,
That idea is so crazy...uh...Cheney, you say...hmmm, you know, now that I think about it...is there any chance we can impeach Cheney now?

Posted by: sheerahkahn on May 25, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

Unless I am missing something war with Iran makes no economic sense. All you wise ones, please tell me what Cheney would hope to gain. Posted by: Ron Byers

Not to get all conspiratorial on you, but we know the biggest Saudi oil field is now producing declining volumes of crude. In the span of about three years, "peak oil" has gone from a crackpot theory to a genuine concern to an accepted reality.

Against this backdrop, securing the Iraqi and Iranian oil fields makes some longterm economic sense.

Posted by: owenz on May 25, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

"...nudging Israel ... to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles..."

Preposterous. If Israel does decide to hit the Iranian nuclear program, they will hit it hard. If a VP's cabal is scheming to bring about war between the U.S. and Iran, they can't count on half measures
from Israel.

Posted by: Dabodius on May 25, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

A shooting war with Iran is not like a shooting war with Iraq. The Iranians would shoot back. This is not a slam dunk assumption to make given our current commitments in Iraq and the state of the American military but I would imagine we would beat their military in the field. That would just be the beginning, not the end of the war. The Iranians have a national identity. Urban warfare would be the order of the day. It would make what is going on in Iraq look like a cake walk. Every Iranian would be a potential enemy. There are tens of millions of Iranians.

Worst of all, in the initial days an Iranian would play hell with international oil production and transport. Remember the locations of the three biggest oil reserves in the world. Saudia Arabia, Iran, Iraq. What would war with Iran mean to oil production and delivery. $10.00 per gallon gas anybody. That would be world wide. The Chinese, Indians and Europeans would suffer worse than the United States, but it would be bad here too.

Of course the world would adapt and recover over time, but a preemptive war with Iran would be nothing short of insane.

Posted by: Ron Byers on May 25, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

"The Democratic Party will be outlawed like the Communist Party was in the days of the USSR."

Uh, the Communist party actually ran the USSR...but from reading that entire post, you could tell history was not that person's strong point.

Posted by: Vincent on May 25, 2007 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

I hear what owenz says about peak oil, but the idea of "securing oil fields" is so damn 19th and early 20th century to be laughable. "Securing" resources is extraordinarily expensive and futile in the long run. Don't believe me, ask the Brits and French how they are doing with their empires.

I have long thought that the education of every neocon must have ended around 1900. Apparently nobody told them that over the next century all of the resource empires went into decline and ultimately collapsed. It is just cheaper to buy off the locals.

Posted by: Ron Byers on May 25, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not at all surprised to hear that. I have no faith whatsoever in Bush's administration. Have you seen Loose Change?

Posted by: Pamela on May 25, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds like Billy Bob`s holiday check cleared & he`s into the good stuff already. Far too many of these microscopic brained fools.

owenz >"...we know the biggest Saudi oil field is now producing declining volumes of crude. In the span of about three years, "peak oil" has gone from a crackpot theory to a genuine concern to an accepted reality..."

Actually all evidence suggests that but we don`t "know" that is true. The other three largest fields ARE all in decline. Also it appears that all flowmeters used to monitor the flow of oil from Iraq have been "broken" since the invasion. Rumors are that much of the Iraqi oil is being sent through a Saudi pipeline and being used to "prop up" Saudi production numbers.

Sounds like Cheney & friends are having a high old time. Certainly might explain a lot of the unconnected bits and pieces.

"...it's the ideas that count, not the number of trees you kill to print them." - Phil Carter@Intel-dump.com

Posted by: daCascadian on May 25, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Bush's actions during the recent Israeli attack on Lebanon give some credibility to this story. The failure of that attack should deter anyone from such action in the future. Still, Bush has been a good example of one common definition of insanity by doing the same thing and expecting different results before.

Posted by: Mike on May 25, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

The only optimism I have in the face of this story is that Israel is NOT going to attack Iran. Didn't Cheney try to get them to attack before? I think they told him to pound salt and to attack Iran himself if he thought it was such a good idea.

Posted by: Cal Gal on May 25, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

when your favorability is at a record low 19%..

like cheney's is..

what do you have to lose...

Posted by: mr. irony on May 25, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Is it significant that a bird pooped on the president's arm Thursday during what a NYT reporter said was his first full, solo news conference in three months?

Posted by: consider wisely on May 26, 2007 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly