The WH's Iran Bluster Plans

Time magazine reports that new chief of staff Josh Bolten has come up with a patented five-point plan to turn around his boss's poll numbers. 

Here are four:  Make Wall Street Happy by extending dividend tax cut,  "brag" about the economy, buddy up to the press (reportedly the first step: offer a Fox's Tony Snow the job as spokesman), and make a big show of being tough on the border.  “It'll be more guys with guns and badges,” said a supporter  of the border plan. “Think of the visuals. The President can go down and meet with the new recruits. He can go down to the border and meet with a bunch of guys and go ride around on an ATV.”

A ride on an ATV? That'll definitively solve the president's years-long slide. So... so far, so unimpressive.

But now for lucky number five. Here's how Time puts it:

Reclaim Security Credibility
Presidential advisers believe that by putting pressure on Iran, Bush may be able to rehabilitate himself on national security, a core strength that has been compromised by a discouraging outlook in Iraq. "In the face of the Iranian menace, the Democrats will lose," said a Republican frequently consulted by the White House.

Well, thank god Rove has been kicked downstairs and politics is no longer driving key national security concerns.

But as I wrote a few weeks ago, the White House might think  bluster is a brilliant idea,  it could just as easily work against them, and kick off--heavens to bitsies--a real debate about whether it makes sense to attack Iran.

The administration is hoping for a replay of Iraq and a rally-'round the flag effect. And they might get some of that, but they're also risking the opposite: a country full of people not buying the White House's  rhetoric.

As Time notes, a  recent LAT poll showed just that risk. From the LAT:

In a telling reflection of Bush's erosion in public support, 54% said they did not trust him to "make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran," while 42% of respondents said they trusted him to do so.

That was a reversal of public sentiment since 2003, on the eve of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, when 55% of respondents said they trusted him to make the right decision over whether to go to war.

Let's just hope the White House doesn't decide to kick it up a notch and not just talk about attacking Iran but actually do it. Because as much as I think the bluster might bite them in the butt, I'd really rather not see a real attack.

Comments

Shhhhhhh, the New Republic is already pushing for an attack. Time to shut up and close ranks with Joe Lieberman, the DLC, the WaPo, the Brookings Institute, et al.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

I see the frequent accusation, but not the evidence that Bush's actions are at all driven by his polling data. If that were the case, we would have liberated Iraq in 2004, not 2003.

The Clinton prism seems to have bent all light.