Ironic on Iran and Iraq!

President Bush is nothing if not ironic. Not that he or the MSM notices it. It became so clear to me this week that I couldn’t stop snorting when I read this article from the UK Timesonline this week. Seriously folks this guy is delusional and the reporting on his so called “Foreign Policy” is just as delusional.

Now, it isn’t that I don’t believe that the Decider won’t bomb Iran. I don’t for a minute believe the “Realists” who think he won’t because it is too crazy and insane. I believe he might do it because it is crazy and insane (see Iraq).

So, when I saw this in Froomkin’s column I was simply dumbstruck with the blasé way it was reported by the Times:

Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran. The Prime Minister’s comments came hours before the UN’s nuclear watchdog raised the stakes in the West’s showdown with Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had expanded its nuclear programme, defying UN demands for it to be suspended. Hundreds of uranium-spinning centrifuges in an underground hall are expected to be increased to thousands by May when Iran moves to “industrial-scale production”. Senior British government sources have told The Times that they fear President Bush will seek to “settle the Iranian question through military means” next year, before the end of his second term if he concludes that diplomacy has failed. “He will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor,” said one.

That’s right he will want to “settle the Iranian question through military means” because “He will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor,”… Now if even the Poodle thinks military action against Iran is wrong, well what can one say.

Not to mention that this is a complete turnaround from his Iraq policy WHICH IS to leave it to his successor as he said in March of 2006:

President Bush said yesterday that future administrations will have to grapple with how and when to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, indicating that he doesn't see an end to U.S. commitments until at least 2009.

"That'll be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq," Mr. Bush said at his second press conference of the year, during which he also said Iraq is not in the middle of a civil war and defended his continued commitment of U.S. troops.

Presumably this is also his policy on the Afghanistan War as well.

So, how ironic is it that he doesn’t want to leave the Iran Situation to his successor, but is leaving his Iraq Situation (read debacle) to his successor. Not to mention that a military “solution” to the Iranian Situation is beyond any definition of debacle and which will of course be left to his successor.

Actually what this means that he is going to leave the havoc he has wreaked on this country and the world to his successor and successor generations.

If we thought it took ten years to dig out from under the domestic havoc brought to us by the Reagan Administration it is nothing compared to the domestic and international havoc wreaked by George W. Bush and the “Rubber Stamp” Congress.

So, apparently starting Armageddon in Iran is resolving the problem with Iran. I guess this is because the Taliban and Al Qaeda resurgence in Afghanistan and the Mess-O-Potamia isn’t enough for this Administration. They apparently want the next Administration to have a full plate.

I love irony, but what part of this don’t I understand?