My brain and my hands often seem to exists in different time-zones when I'm typing too.

Regime change in Russia does seem to be on the agenda further down the line.

That's when we've finished democratizing the Middle East, have won the Long War on Terror, established a friendly government in Venezuela and contained the historic challange of a resurgent China! We are certainly going to be busy 'ruling the world' in the coming years.

I have a speculative flight of fancy about how American politics may develop in the future. I believe we may see a split between the 'Merchants' and the 'Militarists' across party lines.

In relation to Iran, another strange thing happened yesterday, which I'm having some trouble with, because it seems weired, and has made be question my memory.

I was looking at the BBC's website yesterday and noticed a very interesting lead piece containing a reference to a journalist's direct question to Bush about plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran. According to the BBC piece Bush once again did not use this opportunity, when asked directly about the nuclear weapons option, to catagorically deny that the United States would ever use nukes against a non-nuclear power. Instead, Bush replied that all options, including the use of force, are still 'on the table' to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. However, he insisted the US was trying to resolve the issue diplomatically.

Now, this is a very clear answer to a very clear question from Bush. He's saying, 'No, we have not ruled out using nuclear weapons against Iran.' It's also a really big strategic and moral shift in American military policy, away from the stance of vowing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. The question arises, should a responsible President use this kind of forum to announce such important changes in American nuclear policy? Is Bush aware of the seriousness of these kinds of 'reckless' statements in the current climate? Does Bush know what the hell he is talking about? Should one talk about nuclear weapons like this at all?

I thought this was an interesting piece, especially on the BBC, which has a tendancy to 'smooth things over' in relation to Bush. So today I went back for a quick look at the piece, as other sources had picked up on 'Bush refuses to rule out nuclear strike on Iran.' Well, strangely, the BBC story had been changed when I looked this morning! The reference to the direct question about the use of nukes on Iran had been carefully removed. The rest of the piece was the same as yesterday though.

I'm not sure how much one should read into something like this. I think one could see this as a kind of 'censorhip' of a statement which is rightly regarded as being beyond the pale. I did think that it might interest you though.

In my ideal world Warren Zevon would sell as many records as Bruce Springsteen.