There is but one conclusion and it doesn't put Georgie in a good light.

Definately the Idiot one

The president will always insist that there is the "possibility" of invading countries the USA is at odds with; that doesn't mean it's going to happen necessarily.

Complete idiot...

As usual dear George wants a war, and will use any excuse to have one :-(

Complete idiot... like pretty much every other president they've ever had in past, present, and probably future.

This guy is so embarrassing.

If you have to ask that question you haven't been following his exploits closely, he is not only a complete idiot but he is a danger to the entire world idiot.

The guy is totally brainless

If you beleive this report call me. I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale with a very low down payment.

Actually it is his cohort ,Cheney ,that is pushing the hardest on this issue.He seems to be determined to attack before the term is over though there is little support for this at all.

So it is possible to not have a brain and live.

Whether or not the report is true doesn't matter. He knows that nobody will stop him no matter what he does. If I had that kind of power I'd probably behave like a complete idiot as well.

Complete idiot! The good news is with the democratic senate he'll have a hard time starting yet another war before he gets booted out the door for the next president.

i think the guy is not getting any real action in his personal life (unlike clinton)so he has to spice things up by attacking one or the other defenceless countries.I think he is not an idiot because he knows how to keep the action and the romance ALIVE.

ROTFLMAO--Believe a politician????

Well its the old fashioned rule that a person is smart, but poeple are stupid

GWB only "knows" what his advisors tell him and cause him to believe. Don't be so obtuse as to think that the US invades a country just because the President wants to. The US invades a country because the National Security Council and about 300 exceedingly poweful unelected men decide it's in "the National interest." We'd have gone into Iraq regardless of who had been elected in 2000, and we'd still be there regardless of who'd been elected in '04, and we'll STILL be there regardless of who's elected in '08 (UNLESS it's Ron Paul). All the public justificications for such attacks and interventions - whether true, false, or a mixture of both - are just so the people who actually fight our wars will believe it's the right war to fight. As for Iran, one can never be sure whether the implied threat of an invasion reflects an actual serious consideration on the part of the threatener, or is just a device in itself to manipulate and intimidate their adversaries. Like Reagan's Star Wars, it could be a complete ruse. However, the power elites around the world are very sensititive to the fact that oil is running out. Europe is re-arming. The REAL powers that be are maneuvering and mobilizing. In that same vane, when the SecDef says "this isn't about Oil" - in one sense he's telling the truth: this isn't about a few fatcat oil companies enriching themselves. Where the lie is that this IS about securing the Middle-Eastern oil reserves for America and our friends, while denying them to China and our other enemies/competitors. This is about making sure that in 25 years Americans can still turn on the lights and heat their homes, even if 2/3 of the rest of the planet can't. This apocalyptic and real-politik policy, however, does not play well in Peoria.

He is a meathead with the IQ of a burnt pork chop ... if he had a brain, he would be REALLY dangerous, if he had a clue, he would bomb his clue to nonexistance.

This poll provides insights into still-not-impeached President Bush's learning issues. http://www.wikiality.com/Daily_Poll#December_5.2C_2007