Lame Duck?
Henry here. I found a rather terrifying article by Niall Ferguson in the Los Angeles Times where he tries to write, with some objectivity I thought, about President Bush.
He says that he visited Capital Hill and was impressed by the number of senators who referred to Bush, with a 37% approval rating, as a lame duck. He seems quite convinced that Bush will strike back at his critics and at Iran’s nuclear program.
The summation of his article reads “Don’t count Bush out yet, and don’t be surprised when missiles strike Iran’s nuclear plants.” He clearly does not expect Bush to go quietly, as many senators appear to do and thinks that Bush will strike hard.
He says “my guess is that Bush is going to bite back. And the obvious way for him to do this is over Iran. Last Tuesday, Vice President Dick Cheney declared: ‘We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.’ Remind you of anything? It was Cheney who set the pace four years ago as the administration prepared to confront Iraq, insisting that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.”
That a more serious confrontation could easily erupt from Bush’s aggressiveness is, for me, quite terrifying, especially in light of what is apparently an imminent civil war in Iraq. I grew up on stories of the first two world wars and am in no way eager for the third to get started.