"But he wouldn't do that"

Very early on in the Bush Administration, I opined that Bush sees himself as divinely anointed by God Himself to architect the battle of Armageddon. Among my less politically-inclined peers, my dark musings on what stinks about the official explanations of what happened on 9/11/01 and my predictions about the consequences of pre-emptive war, bankrupting the country, about Bush's dictatorial aspirations, about turning the United States into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, have all been met by the same comment: "But he wouldn't do that."

And this is what the Bush Administration has always banked on, and why these people are so unconcerned about the ever-increasing scandals enveloping the Administration: Because there is a line beyond which people are unwilling to look at their government. Americans have a deep-seated need to believe that their government means well, that it means to do good, and that on balance, our government would never do anything willfully to hurt this country.

That might have been a legitimate assumption, until the administration of George W. Bush. Because where this president, who has more psychological and family issues than any president since Richard Nixon, surrounded by some of the most greedy, ruthless, evil men ever to sit in the corridors of power in this country, is concerned, all bets are off.

Krugman:

"But he wouldn't do that," say people who think they're being sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn't sensible. It's wishful thinking.

[snip]

Now there are rumors of plans to attack Iran. Most strategic analysts think that a bombing campaign would be a disastrous mistake. But that doesn't mean it won't happen: Mr. Bush ignored similar warnings, including those of his own father, about the risks involved in invading Iraq.

As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently pointed out, the administration seems to be following exactly the same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: "The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops."

Why might Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. Bush, whose presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe that he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment.

[snip]

And it's not just Mr. Bush's legacy that's at risk. Current polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power. This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics.

Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't. Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again?

Where Bush is concerned, it's all about him -- his legacy, his messianic delusions, his money, his power. That what he intends to do will ruin our standing in the rest of the world, as well as plunge the entire Middle East into war not just against each other, but against us, in perpetuity, never occurs to him. As long as he's the dictator.