Air stikes on Iran - would it help/hurt bush public support?

just wondering what the ducw is

(Subject line changed slightly, "support" was changed from "approval" - deleted "how")

If he can successfully con people into believing we are in immediate danger again or if they do another "terrorist" attack in country I'd say they'd shoot up quite high.

If the people are as skeptical as they should be of this clown and his minions, call bullshit and he does it anyway they will drop.

Personally, I haven't much faith in the people so I can see scenario one playing out.

And these clowns have demonstrated that they don't know how to make a media sandwich anymore, never mind a full course meal of horseshit. Unless there is some sort of radical shift that includes real international (as opposed to lapdog UK) outrage about the activities of the Iranian government, the tendency is to look at Monkey as the dry drunk who cried wolf once too often, I think. If France started bitching about Iran, for example, then he might be in business....

Bomb a country for some poll figure.
You think it will just end there
Gee that is sick thinking

reason we might see air strikes on Iran would be to boost little hitler's ratings, but this gang is effiecient at doing two evil things at once. I don't doubt there is a deeper, more gruesome motivation.

What comes after no going to be easy
Iraq already a damn big deep pit.
How deep you want the pit to be?

Always remember the current polling on support for what we are already doing. Expanding military activity would not be popular and any attempted spin would only backfire.

than the war in Iraq. Not a good case, but a better case.

Iraq never was a danger to us, if anyone else. Bush picked Iraq not because it was strong and dangerous, but because it was weak and available. Rather than dance with a real country with real armaments, he picked a fight with a palooka nation for a quick win.

Unfortunately, whatever a good, thoughtful, trustworthy president would do with regard to Iran is besides the point. We are stuck with a president that nobody trusts and can't think straight, and a war that has sapped our strength and put 140,000 troops in Iraq unable, frankly, to defend themselves against retaliation.

So to answer the question, since the nation is more or less sharing in the above perception, I voted for it being a political disaster for Bush. Even those people who believe Iran is a clear and present danger are going to have to admit that Bush screwed up by betting our entire nation on Iraq while Iran and NK happily built up programs, so at most he gets a "well, better late than never" from the most hawkish and alarmed people.

People are not rational, American people in particular tend to be extremely irrational. It seems to be a strong impulse for people to rally around their leader during times of war, in fact, it almost seems to be instinctive. My guess is that we will see the effects of that if we attack Iran. I don't think it will be anything like as great as it was during the initial Iraq invasion, and I don't think it will last. They may try to time it in such a way as to derive maximun gain in the midterm elections. Not sure how successful that will be, depends on how the Democrats play their hand, though given their track record, I'm not all that confident.

Long term, I think the results of such an attack are potentially catastrophic, and it will lead to even less support of Bush, but much of the damage will already be done.

This post brought to you by an incorrigible pessimist.

I thought an overwhelming majority of Americans would have been completely outraged by Katrina. But all of the Bush lovers that I knew, kept loving bush. My bet is they'll keep supporting this insanity till the end of our days.

I no longer have faith in the Majority of the American public to do the right thing. But I suspect that we'll be hitting Iran after the 06 elections.