Put this in context.

Yesterday, I blogged this article in Time about Josh Bolten's 5 point plan "recovery plan" for the administration. I was agog that apparently the administration sees the problem only as one of communication, not policy. But, while reading it again responding to an email, this section jumped out at me.

Presidential advisers believe that by putting pressure on Iran, Bush may be able to rehabilitate himself on national security, a core strength that has been compromised by a discouraging outlook in Iraq. "In the face of the Iranian menace, the Democrats will lose," said a Republican frequently consulted by the White House.

Put this in a little context. Can you imagine the press so blithely discussing Kennedy escalating the Cuban Missile Crisis in order to win the midterm elections?

And think about what this is saying, the President of the United States intends to escalate the situation with Iran, making attacks on Americans more likely, in order to garner more votes for his congressional candidates.

In what bizarre world of psychology does exposing the voter to danger make them more likely to vote for the guy who exposed them to danger? (I know the theory, cling to a "strong leader" in times of crisis, but how messed up is that when the "strong leader" is the one amplifying the threat?)

And the press discusses this solely in the context of a political strategy.

You know, beyond all this Dem/Repub sports-style coverage of elections, there is a real world, a real world in which wars have ramifications beyond the president's approval rating.