Wargasm!

So we have the Congressional Budget Office saying that by 2017, American taxpayers would have spent $2.4 trillion on war. We have a military budget proposal from President Bush that includes funding "to modify B-2 bombers so they can drop a Massive Ordnance Penetrator" aka, "a really big friggin' bomb" on something (it can't be for Iraq; we've bombed the hell out of them already). We also have conflicting points of view between Bush and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about whether or not America needs to renew their missile defense system (the thing the Bush Administration was so gung-ho about before the 9/11 attacks). We have Fox News essentially agreeing that going at Iran is the right thing to do.

There are only a few elements in the Bush Administration not talking about blowing something up or attacking someone (and Gates is the most visible member of that group). About a month ago, Chris Matthews was scared shitless at the thought that Bush would start another unprovoked invasion, and he questioned nearly every politician at the time on their thoughts about going into Iran (his fervor has quieted some since he started to promote his book). The candidates have been all over the spectrum with Iraq: some want a complete pullout; some want a phased withdrawal; some want a "continued military presence;" and others want to copy the Bush Administration Playbook word-for-word.

As far as Iran is concerned, the American people seem to be in one of four camps:

1. "Let's Kick Ass!" -- This crowd is made mostly made up of the 25% of people who still support the Bush Administration. People who are so afraid of terrorists to the point that they're all-to-willing to relinquish their civil liberties, violent sociopaths and people who are prejudice against all-things-Muslim round out the membership.
2. "It's Gonna Happen Tomorrow and We Gotta Stop It!" -- These people believe that war with Iran is inevitable like Group 1, but unlike that Group they don't think it's a good idea.
3. "I'll Believe It When I See It" -- People of a scientific mind; they trust what they can taste, smell, touch and hear. Until they see an American tank rolling through Tehran, they don't think that Bush & Co. would be crazy enough to attack/invade a third country (after Afghanistan and Iraq).
4. "History Tells Us..." -- This group is cynical, yet realistic. They understand that last time, Bush received overwhelming public support before going to Iraq, and rationalize that he'd need the same before even thinking about going into Iran. At the same time, they know that Bush's record of extreme secrecy, cronyism, and politicizing everything to win makes him dangerously unpredictable.

I have to admit that over the last three years, I've been a member of the last three Groups (some longer than others). My personal take as of this moment? Bush is using this time period as his "diplomacy period" so if he does take military action, he could say that he tried. But with Gates resisting on the inside, no Karl Rove to spin the message, and an increasing focus on the 2008 candidates (both Democrats and Republicans) you have to wonder whether Bush has the "political capital" to pull something this big off.