Okay. I resist making a lot of predictions, or presenting a lot of theories that I can't tie back directly to an article in a mainstream news source.

You should notice that the majority of the articles I post come from established news organizations. I believe this makes it harder to dismiss the stories, though the wing-nuttiest can always find a reason to dispute the facts. This blog is not aimed at them. It's aimed at the moderates of both parties, the libertarians, the independents.

However, I'm going to make a prediction here and now that will put me squarely in the "wild-eyed leftist" camp to some. If I'm right I'll have called it early. If I'm wrong, well you can just say that I was off on a "crazy liberal conspiracy theory" and I'll have a little egg on my face.

Here it is: Bush and Cheney will not cede the White House, regardless of the outcome of the 2008 election.

There I said it. They will take military action in Iran as the election approaches and use that, as well as "reports of credible evidence of an impending attack" by whoever they're calling "Al Qaida" that week, as the pretext to declare martial law. They will do this in the guise of wise and benevolent protectors of the nation, assuring that it is "just until the crisis is over", but they will not give up power.

They will at last have their "Unitary Executive", their Imperial Presidency.

Am I crazy? Could be. I'd love to be wrong, but if I had told you 10 years ago that we would go to Iraq with no credible evidence, that we'd be caught torturing Iraqi's at Abu Ghraib, that we'd be holding people without charge in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, suspending Habeas Corpus, the Vice President claiming he is not subject to the laws governing the Executive Branch, the failure of Hurricane Katrina, and on and on...you would have said I was crazy then too.

Consider first the story below from the Guardian Unlimited, and the several other stories I have linked to after it. At a minimum, we are going to war with Iran. What happens after that? Well, you have my "wild-eyed leftist" prediction.

Do I really believe this? I'm not sure that I do. On the other hand, I don't think you can rule it out.

From Guardian Unlimited: Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." [...] The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week. [...]

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

  Here are some more stories that bolster the case that we are without a doubt going to war with Iran. Again, if I'm wrong, tens-of thousands of lives are spared, and I just have a little embarrasment to deal with. More than a fair trade in my book.

Iran arming Taliban, U.S. claims The United States has "irrefutable evidence" that Tehran is transferring arms to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, a top U.S. diplomat told CNN Wednesday, noting that NATO forces have intercepted some of the arms shipments.

Report: IAF preparing for Iran strike The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has been training on long-range flights, including refueling in mid-flight, in preparation for potential strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.

Bush reaffirms all options open regarding Iran US President George W. Bush said Tuesday he hoped to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program diplomatically but insisted again all options, including military force, were on the table.

New Iran Regime-Change Think Tank Opens in DC Meet Mahtaub "Mattie" Hojjati. A well-connected government and business consultant Hojjati is about to embark on a new career: revolutionary provocateur. She has two missions: to hasten the overthrow of the Iranian regime, and to convince the American public to support her.

Republican Thompson highlights serious Iran threat Tougher sanctions or a blockade on Iran could help foment growing internal dissent to topple the government, former U.S. Republican senator Fred Thompson, a potential presidential candidate, said on Tuesday.

  There are doubtless many other, and in many cases better, examples, but these are the ones I've been collecting over the last few weeks when I started to notice a preponderance of Iran stories and quotes and rumors in the press. I've been planning to do some posts on them, but with the "2 new scandals a day" administration, it can be quite difficult to keep up.

In any case, there you have it. My crazy conspiracy theory. Consider me like Fox news in this one way: I report, you decide.

| This is not the homepage, but it could be...