As I write this on the Sunday before you read it, we’ve just learned of the first American casualties of our, what — war? conflict? attack? — on Iran. The Supreme Leader of Iran, for the past 36 years or so, is likely dead, though at the moment I’m writing, that is still to be confirmed.

Though I’m deeply saddened by the loss of American lives, I won’t shed tears over the passing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as he was, or maybe is, a religious zealot who used his claimed religious authority to murder, torture and otherwise do things that would seem to be entirely beyond the teachings of his actual religion.

But I cannot help but wonder about the timing of the attack. You have likely seen, in social media if nowhere else, video clips of the current president filmed back during the Obama administration, claiming then-President Barack Obama was going to attack Iran (or Syria, he was not, of course, consistent) to distract Americans from other things. Then TV pitchman Trump disapproved of attacking Iran, as it would only be to cover up other stuff.

Now, my regular reader (Hi, Jeff!) will recall I often leap atop my soapbox of idealism to decry hypocrisy in all its forms. And given we were currently in talks with the Iranian government over their nuclear program and given we already completely obliterated said program (at least Trump claimed that), the timing of the attack on Iran seems, at the very least, convenient for Trump.

Just as several million documents from the files of Jeffrey Epstein have come out, far more heavily redacted than just the names of the victims (as was claimed) and as we have learned millions more documents are out there, because the Department of Justice (supposedly, over history, a non-political entity) hasn’t released them. Or it has because there are no more. Or there’s still a list on the Attorney General’s desk, etc, etc.

So, if one wished to draw the nation’s attention away from what appears to be a profound scandal involving the sexual abuse of children, starting a war with another country might be helpful.

I can only hope enough people will keep their eyes on the ball and will not be distracted. After all, a simple search for the name “trump” on the DOJ’s already purged website returns no fewer than 5,250 times the name pops up. Remember how worked up the far right got over Pizzagate? The claim that children were being trafficked in the basement of a certain pizzeria? You know, the one that doesn’t have a basement? Where is their outrage now at the GOPers that seem to have been much more involved, to include pictures with underage women? But, Hillary’s emails! Attack Iran!

But let’s not talk about that, OK?

In my oft favorite section of Colorado Politics, the Out West Round Up, we learned of a bill working its way through the Wyoming state legislature. Currently in the state House there is a bill that would, as first written, allow for recall votes on all elected officials in the state, specifically to include local municipalities. As first written, a petition gathering the signatures of 25% of registered voters in the appropriate voting area, like a town, and you could start rounding up those signatures the day after someone was sworn in to office. That meant that in theory, in lovely little towns like Chugwater, which I drove through dozens of times enroute to various ICBM sites north of there, as few as roughly 30 signatures would be able to trigger a recall election. In even smaller town, if you got as few as eight signatures, the recall was on.

Happily, the bill was amended, and now the proposal will soon be on the way to the state Senate, with a 40% of registered voter requirement, and you couldn’t petition for removal until after a nine-month grace period in office had elapsed.

This is a significant improvement, albeit around the edges. But I don’t support recall elections for elected officials, period.

There are mechanisms, we call them “elections,” wherein we can choose our leaders. If you don’t like what a particular elected official is doing, write letters, hold protests, make noise, but don’t assume that just because you want someone out of office, you should get your way via a costly and disruptive recall election.

Now, it is true we may need to have the recall option for appointed officials, especially judges. But that method is called “impeachment” and is quite different and is handled by the elected officials involved. You might be amused to learn Thomas Jefferson tried to remove, via impeachment, two members of the US Supreme Court. The first, John Pickering, was a fairly easy target, in that he was constantly drunk and regularly had conversations from the bench with people no one else could see or hear. But Jefferson also went after Samuel Chase, a distinguished jurist, only because Jefferson hated his decisions and wanted him out of the way.

Clearly the Founders would be OK with the first case (heck, they were the Founders!), and in the second, Jefferson was defeated, because the Senate believed in judicial independence.

Wyoming is taking a step that is OK, I guess, in that they have placed checks on the process that will, hopefully, prevent frivolous or malicious efforts to remove elected officials due to policy disagreements. If they do adopt the higher percents for signatures and a grace period, I guess I’m not deeply offended.

Will it pass?

Stay Tuned.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.