One of the more curious manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome over the years has come from the Soothsayer Wing of the Democratic party. These are the pundits that purport to be in the know regarding some pretty hair raising plans made by Evil George and the Neocon Cabal who have held the country in thrall for nearly 6 years, casting a spell on the sense and sensibilities of ordinary Americans in order to carry out their nefarious deeds.

Immune to the thought control rays emanating from Karl Rove’s office thanks to their superior tin foil hat design, this Cassandra-like group of Democrats have made it their business to give the country a heads up regarding the latest plans by Bushitler & Co. for turning America into a theocratic dictatorship or a fascist oligarchy.

Pity the friends of any of these crystal ball gazers if they happen to be stupid enough to take their advice on where to put money in the stock market. The track record for accuracy by this unhinged bunch of muckety-mucks is remarkable for not only its lack of success in predicting the future, but also that they expect everyone else to take their idiotic prophecies of doom seriously.

Unfortunately, there is a large segment of the press that seems incapable of applying the minimum amount of critical thinking necessary to see these Tarot Card readers for who they really are; unbalanced Bush haters whose judgment and instincts are shaped by the shadows moving furtively in their subconscious mind rather than anything that approaches reality. Because of that, the lefty Oracles manage to get their ridiculous prognostications disseminated to a large and suitably gullible assemblage of supporters who swallow their nonsense with a kind the kind of avidity with which children gobble up their Frosted Flakes.

The list of laughably wrong predictions and warnings from this crew is replete with examples from the simply stupid to the bizarre; foretellings of the suspension of the Bill of Rights, a military draft, a round up of dissidents, a staged terrorist attack in October, 2004 (the last “October Surprise” that never was), a “nullification” of the 2004 election if Bush lost to name a few. More recently, we were told that the US would assist Israel in invading both Syria and Iran during the recently concluded Israeli-Islamist War. In fact, we’ve been on the verge of bombing or invading Iran for at least two years. This proves the efficacy of the old saw “If at first you don’t succeed, lie, lie again.”

On the subject of Iran, it seems that Democrats, nervously eyeing the polls as they watch their certain landslide in November begin to slip away, now believe that the President will deliver a coup de grace to their electoral hopes by unleashing an “October Surprise” in the form of a military strike on Iran.

Is it possible? Anything is possible. You could win the lottery. I could spontaneously combust (quite the spectacle, that). Republicans could rein in Federal spending. Glen Greenwald could stop being a blithering hysteric.

Gary Hart has not only predicted an attack on Iran but has been kind enough to write the President’s speech to the American people for him:

Then the president will speak on national television. He will say this: Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons; if this happens, the entire region will go nuclear; our diplomatic efforts to prevent this have failed; Iran is offering a haven to known al Qaeda leaders; the fate of our ally Israel is at stake; Iran persists in supporting terrorism, including in Iraq; and sanctions will have no affect (and besides they are for sissies). He will not say: ...and besides, we need the oil.

Therefore, he will announce, our own national security and the security of the region requires us to act. “Tonight, I have ordered the elimination of all facilities in Iran that are dedicated to the production of weapons of mass destruction…..” In the narrowest terms this includes perhaps two dozen targets.

But the authors of the war on Iraq have “regime change” in mind in Iran. According to Colonel Sam Gardiner (author of “The End of the ‘Summer of Diplomacy’: Assessing U.S. Military Options in Iran,” The Century Foundation, 2006) to have any hope of success, such a policy would require attacking at least 400 targets, including the Revolutionary Guard. But even this presumes the Iranian people will respond to a massive U.S. attack on their country by overthrowing their government. Only an Administration inspired by pre-Enlightenment fantasy could believe a notion such as this.

I would first point out that if Bush gave a speech like that, I would be willing to run naked through the next Democratic National Convention. Secondly, Hart’s snide little aside about the United States “needing the oil” is belied by the fact that any such attack would surely not give the US any control whatsoever over Iranian oil supplies and would probably initiate a supply cutoff by the Iranians (if we didn’t bomb the oil facilities as well). The remark about oil is leftyspeak for “Evil capitalists are behind this attack which has nothing to do with a madman getting his hands on nuclear weapons but has everything to do with oil company profits.” Simple minded sophistry.

Thank God this mountebank was found out to be a lying, arrogant, poppinjay before he was anointed as the Democratic candidate for President in 1980. This is born out in Hart’s small minded parting shot at the President in his article:

For a divinely guided president who imagines himself to be a latter day Winston Churchill (albeit lacking the ability to formulate intelligent sentences), and who professedly does not care about public opinion at home or abroad, anything is possible, and dwindling days in power may be seen as making the most apocalyptic actions necessary.

Bush may be incoherent. But Hart proves who is the adult and who isn’t with that last remark.

Not to be outdone in the “October Surprise” department, “Susan UnPC” writing at Larry Johnson’s blog No Quarter goes Hart one better. After expressing skepticism about an attack on Iran before the election, she evidently can’t resist the pull of pithy prognostication by highlighting a piece in The Nation that solemnly informs us that the President is going to send a “Strike Group” (?) of one aircraft carrier, one cruiser, one destroyer, one frigate, one supply ship, and a submarine escort to the Iranian coast.

I can see where the Iranians would be quaking in their boots. Such a fearsome array of American might could influence the mullahs to throw up their hands and surrender without us having to fire a shot.

One would think that any preparation for a strike on Iran would allow for considerably more seapower than that measly aggregation of naval assets that the armchair admirals at The Nation assure us will be on their way to the Iranian coast on October 1. In fact, given Iran’s vaunted anti-ship capability, it would seem to me suicidal to send only 5 warships into a potential combat area. And since it is unlikely our admirals have completely lost their minds, one would think that either the magazine is talking through its proverbial hat or that they put two and two together and came up with 3 1/2.

Susan UnPC then highlights the considerable downside in attacking Iran, something evidently no one on the left seems to think that the Administration has thought about. Instead, like Gary Hart, they see Bush and his “messianic” quest to rid the world of Iranian nukes before his time in office is over as proof that no one in the White House has told Bush what would happen if we attacked.

In fact, there have been several leaked analyses of the fallout from an attack on Iranian territory. And the Administration’s public pronouncements on the subject have been much more circumspect than they were in the run up to the Iraqi invasion.

That said, it appears the Administration is willing to give diplomacy a little more time – as long as they are convinced that Ahmadinejad isn’t using negotiations as a cover to build up his program as fast as possible.

But does any of this point to an attack on Iran as part of some electoral ploy by Bush to spring an “October Surprise” on the American people and fool them into voting for…who? Bush isn’t running for anything. And given the disgust with Republicans in Congress, it is a stretch to see any gain accruing to the GOP as a result of a very controversial and problematic military action.

For you see, the American people are much smarter than your average liberal. They aren’t as dumb as liberals presume them to be which means that they “get” the idea that attacking in October so close to the election would be more of an electoral gambit than a legitimate response to a national threat. What does it say about the left that they fear an “October Surprise” when any such move by the White House would more than likely boomerang much to the party’s detriment.

What this attitude says about the left illustrates why they can’t win elections. The American people will not trust a party that treats them like they were a bunch of bible thumping, goober chewing, nitwits who can’t think for themselves and need the guidance of the nanny state to help them tie their shoes in the morning.

The only “Surprise” we’re likely to see in October is a further erosion of the gigantic lead built up by Democrats over the summer as the American people realize the party has nothing to offer except deranged Bush hatred. And while they may despise Bush as much as the Democrats, they would prefer to vote for somebody or something rather than mindlessly oppose the President based on the prognostications of people who have yet to be right about predicting anything.