Vice President Cheney yesterday:

Well, we are, I’d say, very concerned about Iran, because for two reasons, again, one, they do have a program. We believe they have a fairly robust new nuclear program. That’s been developed by, or being pursued I guess would be the best way to put it, by members of the E.U.–“the Brits, the Germans and the French–“have been negotiating with the Iranians to get them to allow greater transparency in their program so the outside world can be confident they’re not building weapons, that it’s for peaceful purposes.
The other problem we have, of course, is that Iran is a noted sponsor of terror. They’ve been the prime backers of the Hezbollah over the years, and they have, in fact, been–used terror in various incendiary ways to kill Americans and a lot of other folks around the globe, too, and that combination is of great concern.
We’ll continue to try to address those issues diplomatically, continue to work with the Europeans. At some point, if the Iranians don’t live up to their commitments, the next step will be to take it to the U.N. Security Council, and seek the imposition of international sanctions to force them to live up to the commitments and obligations they’ve signed up to under the non-proliferation treaty, and it’s–but it is a–you know, you look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list.

Hmm. “Nuclear weapons program” . . . “sponsoring terror” . . . “enforcing U.N. resolutions”–it all sounds so familiar. I wonder where we have heard those before?

Juan Cole notes how would-be leaders in Iraq are pondering a withdrawal timetable for US troops.
It’s going to be interesting to watch what happens if powers that be in Iraq go public with such a request in the next few months. The more naive among us might ask, “Well, we went in to liberate the Iraqi people, isn’t this naturally the next step in that process?”
Actually, we didn’t; we invaded Iraq to fulfill the neocon’s vision of securing America’s interests in the region. And as long as those interests remain vulnerable (nothing would be secure in Iraq right now absent the US military) I’m hard pressed to see a major American troop withdrawal. So it will be fun to watch if our supposed interest in Iraqi sovereignty comes into conflict with the Bush administration’s real, unstated interest in expanding American dominance over the region.

Boom:

A series of suicide car bomb attacks rocked Baghdad yesterday killing up to 26 people.
At least four separate bombs went off within 90 minutes of each other in a coordinated strike. The US military said 26 people were killed, although Iraqi officials put the toll lower at around 12 dead.

Four car bombs in one morning: what does that suggest regarding the supply of cars, bombs, and suicide bombers in the region? They’ve apparently got an assembly line in operation there.
We’re continually told that these bombings are an effort to thwart the upcoming elections. I’m not up on the insurgent play book, but if I was planning toward that end, I’d be storing up the big fireworks for the week of the election. Which makes you wonder: if we’re seeing this level of violence now, how much worse might it get by election day?

Great headline:

A poll of 21 countries published yesterday – reflecting opinion in Africa, Latin America, North America, Asia and Europe – showed that a clear majority have grave fears about the next four years.
Fifty-eight per cent of the 22,000 who took part in the poll, commissioned by the BBC World Service, said they expected Mr Bush to have a negative impact on peace and security, compared with only 26% who considered him a positive force.

Count me in with the 58%.

WaPo strives to entertain readers with an A1 “analysis” piece on the reflective, more accommodating George W. Bush:

President Bush is a politician with large ambitions and few doubts, someone not easily given to mea culpas. But in the run-up to today’s inauguration, he has at least hinted at some of the lessons learned in office. From his relations with Democrats in Congress to his approach to the rest of the world, Bush has suggested he will try to strike a different tone — without abandoning principles or policies.

Let’s see, if the White House isn’t changing any “principles” or policies, what’s left to change? Some cosmetic packaging? No more “bring ’em on”? A few policy of honesty?
I’m not buying this spin, and I hope Democratic leaders aren’t either. Thus far, we’ve seen just the opposite of accommodation, such as when Bush renominated the federal judges the Democrats had held up last term. So Democrats, don’t fall for this Rovian spin, until you start seeing substantive changes. And don’t start wetting your pants over being labeled “obstructionist” if you don’t play along with Rove’s game. Someday soon it might be politically advantageous not to be affiliated with team Bush.