Ah yes, because Bush’s post-9/11 plan has worked out so perfectly on so many levels. All along he’d hoped that by 2007 he’d be a political eunuch on the Hill and below-freezing approval levels. And the mad genius’s plan to seize Iraqi oil and topple regimes across the Middle East has gone off without a hitch. Meanwhile, Karl Rove’s Mark Hanna-like scheme to permanently lock in a Republican majority couldn’t be going smoother.

I could never understand why people think Bush would be willing to let one 9/11 happen but not two, three a thousand 9/11s. Does anyone doubt that Bush would have been helped politically by more domestic terror attacks? Surely no one on the left disagrees with that since every time the terror alert is raised they all scream about how it’s Bush’s attempt to play on our fears. Well, why futz around with color schemes and the like? Just call down to the basement and order up some more hard core terror attacks and then bask in the glow of the rally-round-the-president effect. If he was willing to do it once, what’s stopping him from doing it again?

Update: Oh and I forgot to make this point, from a reader:

Along with that, Bush was an evil genius who lied about WMD to trick the US into invading Iraq. But, somehow he was not evil and dishonest enough to arrange for WMD to be “discovered” once we got there. Or, maybe he just forgot. How does that work?