Sometimes I feel really, really dumb. I heard Bush's radio address on Saturday and couldn't figure out why the hell he was explaining to us that insurgents in Iraq

have resorted to brutal attacks against innocent Iraqis and American forces using improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. IEDs are homemade bombs that can be hidden in cars or by the side of a road and detonated remotely, using everyday devices like garage door openers and cordless phones.

I assumed that the Graydon Carter quip was all the explanation I'd get:

"He speaks to the audience as if they're idiots. I think the reason he does that is because that's the way these issues were explained to him."

But that's not it. At least not this time.

I figured out what's going on while watching a Jim Axelrod story on CBS tonight. The story was about a speech Bush gave today (video link here):

AXELROD: For a speech designed to build support for the war in Iraq, the biggest headline was accusing Iran of being behind some of the worst violence. Describing IEDs -- those roadside bombs detonated by remote control -- Mr. Bush said Iran is to blame for ever more lethal versions.

BUSH: Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran.

That's why Bush is giving more speeches about Iraq -- to segue into Iran. He's talking about IEDs so he can call Iran evil. It really doesn't matter to him that he screwed up regime change in the ever-more-violent narco-state of Afghanistan and he screwed up far more appallingly in Iraq -- he wants to do it again. Yesterday's Washington Post told us that:

...Iran has vaulted to the front of the U.S. national security agenda amid Bush administration plans for a sustained campaign against the ayatollahs of Tehran.

...Members of the Hoover Institution's board of overseers who met with Bush, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley two weeks ago emerged with the impression that the administration has shifted to a more robust policy aimed at the Iranian government.

"The message that we received is that they are in favor of separating the Iranian people from the regime," said Esmail Amid-Hozour, an Iranian American businessman who serves on the Hoover board.

"The upper hand is with those who are pushing regime change rather than those who are advocating more diplomacy," said Richard N. Haass, who as State Department policy planning director in Bush's first term was among those pushing for engagement....

They were going to make so many dominoes fall in the Middle East -- and they can't believe they can't still do it. Regime change has given them victories in two election cycles, plus it's given the spoiled scion president a reason to get up in the morning, so they're just going to keep trying to do it.

(The Post story does suggest that they'd like regime change in Iran by nonviolent means. That's nice. But if that's the case, that means the Bushies think the people of Iran are going to openly side with America and simply overthrow the mullahs essentially all by themselves. If they really believe all that, they're too stupid to breathe.)