A plausible scenario of how the next year will go. IWR Part II, anyone?

[BurtWorm]

Tip of the hat to DU's Emit who brought this to my attention here:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_01_08_atrios_archive.html#113726243140279477

How It Goes

Winter/Spring - The clone army of foreign policy "experts" from conservative foreign policy outfits nobody ever heard of before suddenly appear on all the cable news programs all the time, frowning furiously and expressing concerns about the "grave threat" that Iran poses. Never before heard of Iranian exile group members start appearing regularly, talking about their role in the nuclear program and talking up Iran's human rights violations.

Spring/Summer - "Liberal hawks" point out that all serious people understand the serious threat posed by serious Iran, and while they acknowledge grudgingly that the Bush administration has fucked up everything it touches, they stress, and I mean stress, that we really must support the Bush administration's serious efforts to deal with the serious problem and that criticisms of such serious approaches to a serious problem are highly irresponsible and come only from irrational very unserious Bush haters who would rather live in Iran than the U.S.

Late Summer - Rumsfeld denies having an Iran war plan "on his desk." He refuses to answer if he has one "in his file cabinet." Andy Card explains that you don't roll out new product until after labor day.

Early Fall - Bush suddenly demands Congress give him the authority to attack Iran to ensure they "disarm." Some Democrats have the temerity to ask "with what army?" Marshall Wittman and Peter Beinart explain that courageous Democrats will have the courageous courage to be serious and to confront the "grave threat" with seriousness and vote to send other peoples' kids off to war, otherwise they'll be seen as highly unserious on national security. Neither enlists.

Late October - Despite the fact that all but 30 Democrats vote for the resolution, Republicans run a national ad campaign telling voters that Democrats are objectively pro-Ahmadinejad. Glenn Reynolds muses, sadly, that Democrats aren't just anti-war, but "on the other side." Nick Kristof writes that liberals must support the war due to Ahmadinejad's opposition to gay rights in Iran.

Election Day - Democrats lose 5 seats in the Senate, 30 in the House. Marshall Wittman blames it on the "pro-Iranian caucus."

The Day After Election Day - Miraculously we never hear another word about the grave Iranian threat. Peter Beinart writes a book about how serious Democrats must support the liberation of Venezuela and Bolivia.

[Redstone]

1. Well, damn. I wouldn't doubt it a bit. Excellent thinking.

Redstone

[Aviation Pro]

2. However, you forgot the God-sent monkey wrench.....

...in this very plausible scenario.

Hurricane season brings at least five major cyclones (Category 3 to 5) to the East Coast and the Gulf Shore.

[BurtWorm]

3. Could happen.

:thumbsup:

[IDemo]

4. With you up until the 'Early Fall' part

Bush will not feel the need for congressional authority to commence the attack. He's the dictator now, remember?

And, as for Election Day, (barring the Diebold Effect), Americans will correct the current imbalance. "Operation Irani Freedom" will only increase our gains in the Senate and the House.