via RawStrory:

President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he thinks Senator Barack Obama may be elected, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol told FOX News Sunday morning.
.
.
.
WALLACE: So, you're suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama's going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?

KRISTOL: I don't know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can't -- it's hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.

listen carefully at the 1:55 mark for this gaffe:

..."not just israel using nuclear weapons...[mumble stumble]...using force against iran"...

what a piece of work these pnaCONs are.

the revolution will not be televised...

All they have to offer is war and fear.

They should heed the IAEA chief, El Baradei... the ME will be a fire ball. But what do they care since they'll not be suiting up.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

These guys are not interested in a constitutional government.  They are not interested in what the public thinks.  They think, and have been somewhat successful at it, that they can manipulate the public into any damn thing they want.

Grandma Jo

A crippling mistake in more ways than one for Republicans and Americans.

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

Vote for McCain or Bush bombs Iran and the only the rich will survive.

They've done the "bull in the china shop" so long, and it's worked pretty well for them.  They probably just think bulling through will work one more time.

It's going to happen, and they don't care who is in office next, because once they start a war, they know we can't end it just like that.

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

If the nation is at war with Iran at the time of the election, does revulsion to the Republican brand trump McCain's advantage in actual military experience?

Obama is hitting McCain's strength's and many of his supporters seem happily convinced he'll win that argument. If things stay in the realm of debate, perhaps that is true. But if there are bombs over Tehran, the equation changes a bit.  Biography will mean much more than it does now.

I think this election hinges on whether or not there is war or palpable and imminent threat of war. The drumbeat now may just be a fear tactic, but if it doesn't work, it leaves real war to preserve power.  

But you answer this question: If all you had to do was spend other people's money that you have in piles and send other people's kids to die [on some horrible reality tv show] in order to retain control of the most powerful nation on the planet, wouldn't you?

 

Declaring the bottom is the only way back up..