>>>So Bush wants to nuke Iran now huh?
>>>
>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=C3HY5I431EHHRQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportaltop.html
>>>
>>>Hey if he can't get gas to $5.00 a gallon by the end of his term at least he can start World War 3.
>>
>>Long thread, but I'm just first glancing at it. At first glance it seems like just a pile of bull. Then I read through some of it. Yep. Bull.
>>
>>He didn't cause the gas prices. That's an ignorant assupmtion, devoid of any economical common sense.
>>
>>He can't nuke Iran, he shot his load in Iraq, and he only had one.
>>
>>Your thread is simply alarmist and apropos of nothing.
>
>I was under the impression that the writer of the article was a very respectable writer. Of course what they're really saying is that the idea of using nukes is NOT off the table, doesn't necessarly mean it will happen.

I haven't ruled out the possibility of Ronald McDonald killing me in my sleep with an axe, so I guess that could happen too...

>As far as the gas cost goes, yes there are a lot of things to factor into that, however, if Bush was not our president, we probably wouldn't be involved in our little illeagal war over in Iraq - which I think (no proof to back it up though) is one of the main factors in the gas price hike.

I think it has a lot more to do with the oil companies basically charging whatever the market will support. Is Bush soft on them? Yep, but it's just a variation of the long-standing pork barrel philosophy that the basic politics of our country was built on.