Heh

So I saw this on Powerline:

Andrew Sullivan argues that President Bush is too unpopular to undertake a preemptive strike against Iran. But one could just as easily make the opposite argument -- that Bush's low approval numbers make it more likely that he'll strike, particularly since opinion polls show wide support for such action. This, of course, is the "wag-the-dog" theory. I put no stock in it because there's no reason to believe that Bush will make his decision based on political calculation. For the same reason, I put no stock in Sullivan's speculation.

I also like the fact that there is no sourcing for the notion that there is broad support for a "preemptive strike". I wondered why this was the case, and thought to myself, "Maybe because it's bullshit". Sure enough, the LA Times did a poll on the issue, and to say that there is broad support is misleading at best. Specifically:

Forty-eight percent said they would support military action against Iran if it continues to produce material that can be used to develop a nuclear bomb, down from 57 percent in January. Forty percent oppose military action, up from 33 percent in January.

First, just going by the numbers alone, 48-to-40 doesn't seem that broad to me. But whatever, it's more than those opposed, so for the sake of argument I'll grant the point. But look at the trends--not good at all.

Then there's this:

A majority -- 54 percent -- said they ``don't trust'' Bush to make the right decision about whether the U.S. should go to war with Iran, compared with 42 percent who said they do trust him.

So even assuming there is "broad" support for an invasion in some general or abstract sense, there doesn't seem to be the same level of support when Bush would be the one running the show. Sure seems like a fly in the ointment to me.