Impeachment From Below: Legislators Lobby Congress

Inside the Beltway, legislators have been slow to support moves to censure or impeach President Bush and other members of the administration. Only 33 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed on as cosponsors of Congressman John Conyers' resolution calling for the creation of a select committee to investigate the administration's preparations for war before receiving congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing of torture, and retaliation against critics such as former Ambassador Joe Wilson, with an eye toward making recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment. Only two members of the Senate have agreed to cosponsor Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to censure the president for illegally ordering the warrantless wiretapping of phone conversations of Americans.

Outside the Beltway, legislators are far more comfortable with censure and impeachment -- at least in the state of Vermont. Sixty-nine Vermont legislators, 56 members of the state House and 14 members of the Senate, have signed a letter urging Congress to initiate investigations to determine if censure or impeachment of members of the administration might be necessary.

The letter, penned by state Rep. Richard Marek, a Democrat from Newfane, where voters made international news in March by calling for the impeachment of Bush at their annual town meeting, suggests that Bush's manipulations of intelligence prior to the launch of the Iraq war, his support of illegal domestic surveillance programs and other actions have created a circumstance where Congress needs to determine whether the time has come for "setting in motion the constitutional process for possible removal from office."

Noting that Newfane and a half dozen other Vermont communities have called for impeachment, as has the state Democratic Party, Marek explained to the Rutland Herald, "Vermonters from across the state have expressed concerns with the president's actions and have displayed that through resolutions, meetings and petitions. I thought it was important to put our voices down as supporting an investigation and possible censure and impeachment."

The letter, which will be delivered to members of the state's Congressional delegation -- including Congressman Bernie Sanders, a cosponsor of the Sanders resolution -- is just one of a number of fresh impeachment-related initiatives in Vermont.

Representative David Zuckerman, a Burlington legislator who is a member of Vermont's Progressive Party, plans to introduce a resolution next week asking for the state legislature to call on the U.S. House to open impeachment hearings.

Parliamentary procedures developed by then Vice President Thomas Jefferson in the early years of the United States, and still used by the U.S. House of Representatives as a supplement to that chamber's standing rules, have been interpreted as giving state legislatures at least some authority to trigger impeachment proceedings, and Zuckerman's resolution responds to calls from Vermonters to take the dramatic step.

Several county Democratic parties in Vermont have urged the state legislature to take advantage of the opening created by "Jefferson's Manual," which suggests that impeachment proceedings can be provoked "by charges transmitted from the legislature of a state.

There's no question that Vermont is in the lead, but legislators in other states are also exploring their options for pressuring Congress to act on articles of impeachment. A trio of Democratic state representatives in Illinois -- Karen A. Yarbrough and Sara Feigenholtz from the Chicago area and Eddie Washington from Waukegan -- have introduced a measure similar to the one Zuckerman is preparing in Vermont.

The bill urges the Illinois General Assembly to "submit charges to the U. S. House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States, George W. Bush, for willfully violating his Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and if found guilty urges his removal from office and disqualification to hold any other office in the United States."

In Pennsylvania, State Senator Jim Ferlo, D-Pittsburgh, has launched a public campaign urging his constituents to sign petitions calling for Congress to launch an impeachment inquiry. Ferlo, a former Pittsburgh City Council president, says its entirely appropriate for state officials -- and citizens -- to add their voices to the impeachment debate.

"Impeachment proceedings are now the most important issue facing our nation," the state senator explains. "The debate and opinions expressed should not be limited to the views of journalists, legal scholars, intelligence officials and just a few politicians. Every American must confront this issue and speak out loudly and clearly. This is one opportunity to do so."

Comments (73)

1. Vermont....

   Ben & Jerry's....Howard "Scream"....and impeachment dermands

   surely Bush trembles at this "nationwide mass movement!"

   Posted by Mask at 04/22/2006 @ 4:07pm

2. MASK, you're still repeating the "Howard 'Scream' " bs? That is pathetic... But then, I should expect as much from a right-winger.

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/22/2006 @ 5:28pm

3. Posted by MASK 04/22/2006 @ 4:07pm: surely Bush trembles at this "nationwide mass movement!"

   And we should care whether Bush trembles or not? Hell, the man is clearly a coward. He even trembles when Laura yells out "Hi Honey, I'm home."

   Posted by orwell2005 at 04/22/2006 @ 5:46pm

4. I'm pleased to learn a little American government history today. What fun if every Righties least favorite state can theoretically force Congress's hand.

   But what this points to, yet again, is the detachment of our Congressional representation from us the people. It's bad enough to have a president innaugurated courtesy of an election college designed to oversee our national ineptitude, but to have Congress providing an assist to this continuing national embarrassment is too much to bear.

   But before impeachment begins (allow a dream, please) I wonder: just what did Cheney discuss with the oil execs in 2001? just what story did Bush and Cheney concoct when they sat, hands entwined and voices aquiver, before the 9/11 commission? just what did Cheney discuss with CIA officials during his frequent visits there in 2002 and 2003? just what intelligence did Congressional leaders see prior to the Iraqi authorization? just what has been gained by Gitmo and domestic terrorist prisoners? just what plans for our longterm military presence in Iraq has the administration conceived? at what point did we give up on bin Laden? what is the net increase in the Bush clan's assets over the last 64 months? the Cheneys'? just what did Cheney and Scalia talk about between shotgun blasts? just what did Bush and Lay talk about between pecks on each other's asscheeks?

   Just a few of the thousands of questions lingering as this administration heads toward its disastrous sunset, taking us down as it heads west.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/22/2006 @ 7:10pm

5. The impeach montra begins..thos is not what the American people want or will want and it is not what they want the Dems to do. The dems will push this anyway, as all predict on the left and right, and it will be ashes in the Democratic Partys mouth and will be their undoing. It might wake up the GOP back into reality and shape.

   The jackasses surely need it.

   Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 8:35pm

6. Great to see you posting here Ilovephysics. I think I'm beginning to love you.

   Be that as it may, and setting personal projections/feelings aside, thanks John Nichols for the historical political science lesson. Impeach Dick and George III together, ASAP!!!

   Wait. Who's Speaker of the House? Right, let's wait until after these sea-change mid-term congressional elections so we can ironically remove neo-cons again, but this time, goody-goody, there won't be a Ford to pardon them from criminal and/or civil liabilities, er...lie-abilities.

   Posted by lewwelge at 04/22/2006 @ 8:35pm

7. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/22/2006 @ 8:35pm: The impeach montra begins..

   I know its kind of a leftie word and all, but people typically call it a mantra not a montra.

   thos is not what the American people want or will want

   If you say so, Mr. Maasch, it must be true.

   and it is not what they want the Dems to do. The dems will push this anyway, as all predict on the left and right, and it will be ashes in the Democratic Partys mouth and will be their undoing.

   Can't you look beyond the team thing. This is not a question of dems vs. republicans. We have a president who claims the law does not apply to him. That is not the American system of government. George Bush hates our system of government and wants to change it. If you were a true patriot, you would favor the removal of a president that stands above the law, regardless of his party.

   Posted by orwell2005 at 04/22/2006 @ 8:47pm

8. OR,

   Sorry about spelling,,I am awful at it as well as typing...fingers to fat for key board :)

   "If you say so, Mr. Maasch, it must be true."

   No, not at all, it is what I have read and heard on other sites and talking head shows. ..with Dem stratagists as well as gop...

   I disaree with your assement with Bush hating US government and whats to change it. To me that is hysterical and not realistic...to me...and I would favor removing any president for breaking the law in an impeachable or criminal act. I don't believe Bush is or has been there...

   Posted by john maasch at 04/22/2006 @ 8:55pm

9. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/22/2006 @ 8:55pm: No, not at all, it is what I have read and heard on other sites and talking head shows.

   Sorry, I should have said that if Mr. Maasch has read and heard about it on other sites and talking head shows, then it must be true.

   ..with Dem stratagists as well as gop...

   Whoa... You head a dem "stratagist" say that the American people don't want impeachment. Then, it must be true. I mean, we certainly agree that no one is more in touch with the American psyche than dem "stratagists".

   And I would favor removing any president for breaking the law

   Great. I am glad to hear that you are on board.

   I don't believe Bush is or has been there

   Not only has he been there, he is still there. He not only breaks the law, he asserts that it is his right as President to do so. Open your eyes. Stop seeing everything through the lens of Red and Blue. Our President has broken the law. He continues to break the law. And he asserts that he will continue to do so as long as he is President. Would you support impeaching a Democratic president who claimed that he was above the law?

   Posted by orwell2005 at 04/22/2006 @ 9:48pm

10. Impeachment is too good and, anyway, stupidity is not a crime. With all his birds steadly coming home to roost, let George sweat out each day until January '09.

    Posted by Bernardt at 04/22/2006 @ 10:37pm

11. Posted by BERNARDT 04/22/2006 @ 10:37pm: mpeachment is too good and, anyway, stupidity is not a crime. With all his birds steadly coming home to roost, let George sweat out each day until January '09.

    The Decider is threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran. The man is a delusional lunatic. It is not at all clear that the world can afford to wait until 2009.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/22/2006 @ 11:44pm

12. Isn't Yale where ol Gee Dubya went to school?

    maybe that explains the conservative sell out to commie china.

    Posted by Will C. at 04/23/2006 @ 01:22am

13. Why do so many so-called progressives and forward-thinkers still allow the fearmongers and simpletons among us to control the debate? We have reached a point where every time the fox news opinion-as-news crowd hears something they don't like, they wag the dog instead of facing the issues at hand, and then throw fear and distraction in our faces, and we swallow it whole every time. Our president and those around him are money hungry, morally corrupted liars who make a habit of destroying their opponents with the aformentioned spin so their friends can take a little more money away from the poorest among us instead of facing the problems of the world and attempting to carry us into the future. It is abundantly clear that every american who stands unafraid of spin and laughs in the face of the propaganda now meted out by conglomerates under the guise of "news" knows that our president is a liar and is most likely guilty of impeachable offenses. We (I am adding myself to that group of americans) have known bush was a bastard since before he stole his first election, and that it was only a matter of time before he managed to set us on the path of destruction and deciet. The US will not maintain its status as the worlds only superpower for long, and bush has managed in six short years to bring us down kicking and screaming and casting aside all of our friends and allies so he and his cronies could get a little richer. Why do we still argue about each other's grammar and quibble over details? We need to stop wasting our time with these meaningless arguments and finally realize that the world is not black and white, or red and blue, as it were. A liar is a liar, and a bastard is a bastard, and this one is more deserving of impeachment than Nixon, but I don't see him ever resigning in disgrace (he doesn't seem to know the meaning of that one, or "irony" for that matter). Ya Basta. Enough is enough.

    Posted by elijahjh at 04/23/2006 @ 04:42am

14. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/22/2006 @ 11:44pm

    The Decider is threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran. The man is a delusional lunatic. It is not at all clear that the world can afford to wait until 2009.

    If Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, many experts (including your 'friends' in France and Germany), think they are crazy enough to make 9/11 look like a minor incident. Maybe their President, after all, is serious when he says he's going to 'wipe Israel off the map, and soon.' As is so often the case, the left allows its fanatical hatred of Bush to cloud whatever good sense it has, slim enough in any case. While you on the left like Elijah publish your raving hatred on this site, the world out their goes on.

    It has to do with an unreasoning hatred of Bush, or as Charles Krauthammer put it in his definition of Bush Derangement Syndrome:

    "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."

    What is going on here--I mean, besides the usual opportunist agenda of the Leftist/Socialist/Communist remnants of the last century? I have discussed this issue several times in this blog, but the dynamics bear repeating because the lies keep getting repeated; and so the hysteria continues.

    The psychology of some of the Bush Haters is pretty cut and dried. They hate Bush because he stands between them and the implementation of their collectivist "utopian" vision. I have no time to waste on them, except to note that their intentions are deliberately and decidedly malevolent toward this country. They want it to fail at anything and everything it does and they openly cheer for the barbarians at the gate.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/23/2006 @ 06:08am

15. Maasch, Pontificus, Rio,

    I vomit on you sheeple.

    When we have a Democratic President that claims to be above the law and above the Constitution as an American I'll be right there with you demanding the impeachment of her/him.

    At this point I seriously doubt that Shrub is even American.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/23/2006 @ 09:00am

16. Let me try to explain it again-

    Play out the fantasy guys-Dems win Congress in 2006. They don't get started until after January 2007. Impeachment set-up and hearings start in February and run til atleast April. With Easter break, the bills of impeachment don't reach the Senate until after June. Trial begins after 4th of July break.

    So...after EIGHT MONTHS of being in power, the Democrats have produced NOTHING, except "justice for Bush" and go into the fall of 2007 with no "health care", no "education", no "deficit reduction", but the Hard-Core liberal base of the Democratic Party is happy.

    And now....two "rebuttals"-

    1. "No, they can get those other things passed through the House WHILE they are impeaching Bush!". Nope....why? Without the ability to compromise with Bush and make sure he doesn't veto what the Dems want, it'll go nowhere and they (and W) will know it. (Sub-rebuttal) "Well, that will happen ANYWAY". Nope...with a more friendly attitude of Congressional Dems towards Bush, Bush will come off as the "bad guy" if he vetos....but not if he's under attack by them.

    2. "Who cares about health care, education, deficit, etc.? Bringing Bush to justice is THE most important thing!!!"

    Fine...but consider...if for ONE MOMENT...that those that feel that way MIGHT NOT be the "vast majority" of Americans. And that means that AFTER 2007-2008, the Dems face an electorate who are going to say "What the Hell are you guys doing up there? My kids' school is falling apart, I'm working three jobs to pay for my wife's masectomy operation that she had to have, from the chemical plant job....and all you guys think about is 'getting' a lame-duck President!?!?!?"

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2006 @ 09:04am

17. My brief rebuttal to Mask, made at a dangerous time--before I have had a cup of coffee:

    Playing the impeachment game and following Mask's path leads him to conclude that Congress will either get knotted up with impeachment or will create such animosity that they will be stymied by Congressional Republicans and the White House. A possibility, for sure.

    But it is just as possible to imagine the opposite. That is, while Congress is dredging up more and more of Bush's muck, he will not only lose whatever is left of his support in the public; he will also lose Congressional support of those Republicans who are none too happy about staying put on a sinking ship. At the same time, anything that the President might want to do--from air attacks on Iran to rekindling the idea of privatizing social security--will be snuffed as he continues to lose credibility and as each of his attempted actions become viewed as wag-the-dog political diversions.

    Now all of this relies on the one thing that is the most unlikely part of this scenario: the establishment of a clear-headed, well-organized investigation on the part of the Democrats. Far beyond the ability of the Republicans to defend themselves, it is the Democrats' inability to attack, an ability lost over the last decade or so, that will spell doom for the impeachment efforts.

    It is important to clear away as many as possible of the GOP members of Congress to give this country a chance to regain its footing. But if the Democrats are going to preach abstinence from political battles as a method of restoring their power, then this whole discussion is moot.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/23/2006 @ 09:58am

18. As much as I would favor the impeachment of our current demigod, what does that leave us with..........just another former oil exec. in the oval office. Furthermore, Cheney is more intelligent and ruthless than GWB, and is tied to the neocon movement more than than the bumbling arse that currently holds the position.

    That said, the opposition party (insert whoever wants to step up here) needs to begin an attempt to reel in the current administration. While they might call you a traitor and question your patriotism, many Americans are waiting for someone (anyone) to actually get very tough with the Repub's lawless agenda. Impeachment during a time of war is tough to ask for.......even though there is no doubt in my mind that the president has broken the law enough to warrant it. Unfortunately, the best we can hope for is this: limit your fuck ups for the next couple of years........keep your finger off the nuclear button with regards to Iran.......keep doing the "hard work" in Iraq........and hope for the best.

    Our current system of government cannot and will not change until we consider the nuclear option with regard to K street. Dont expect the players in the game to change until we find a way to change the game.

    Posted by jpolston at 04/23/2006 @ 11:36am

19. Apparently my comments were misconstrued and my statements regarding our idiot president were taken to mean that i am unaware of the world situation, hate america, and am hoping for world destruction. Fearmongering? yeah, I thought so. Maybe if daddy bush hadn't given Osama the power to fight the soviets in afghanistan to assist in the fall of communism, he wouldn't have gotten it into his head that he posessed the power to attack us, his one-time benefactors (if inadvertently). Maybe if we hadn't been using Iran for so long, giving them weapons and trying to control their political system for so long, they'd be interested in talking to us about their plans with said nuclear technology. I'm sick of the same argument. Just because our president is a lying bastard and ripe for impeachment doesn't mean that the world has to end in nuclear war. maybe if we impeached the moron, Iran would realize that we as a people do not subscribe to the neanderthal policies of our current administration and realize that the rest of us aren't trying so hard to pick a fight. maybe if we weren't so reliant on foriegn oil and had begun developing hybrid technology years ago when it was realized that world oil reserves were running out, we wouldn't be in this predicament to begin with. just because i support national policy that doesn't drag us closer to world war 3 does not suggest that i am some starry-eyed delusional utopianist. Is it that some of you out there wish you had the courage to stand up to the dominant paradigm and dare to have a vision for the future that isn't the bible-thumping book of revelations version? quote Krauthammer all you want. maybe try thinking for yourself. instead of wild speculation about whether or not Ahmadinejad intends to blow up the world in ten years when he has the capability to refine enough uranium to make a bomb (experts are a dime a dozen. just becasue they're on fox news and act like they're right doesn't mean they are), it would be nice to hear it from the horse's mouth, but as we've already come to understand, we screwed the pooch on that one long ago. The world is in crisis, and we need to start thinking about its future in order to avert said crisis. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Stop the endless arguments and bickering. I don't want to hear you quote someone else. If you're not bringing new ideas to the table, then shut up and stay home. don't forget to duct-tape the windows.

    Posted by elijahjh at 04/23/2006 @ 2:32pm

20. amen polston

    Posted by elijahjh at 04/23/2006 @ 2:35pm

21. an addendum- why are the arguments and rebuttals of right-wingers so childish? I mentioned earlier about us swallowing their arguments, but i'd like to begin a discussion about those very arguments in hopes of banding together and shutting them down. as has been evidenced, we've come to a place in history where money is the only constituency, where our senators spend three days out of every week in office so that they can spend more time raising money and less time legislating, where news services have been bought out and spit endless propaganda. you righties should read some goebbels. the propaganda machine so useful in controlling the masses has been hidden inside the "private sector," yet certain sources clearly bend over backwards to spew the party line. our airwaves, supposedly public-owned, are filled with endless fluff: what cheap crap we should buy to achieve happiness and who we should listen to and follow obediently in this big, scary world where we are just ants, and too small and insignificant to even understand what those politicians are up to, let alone do something about it. we should set some new groundrules. those whose only comments are fearmongering and circular rhetoric should be ignored completely, allowing those who are hoping and working towards a better future to be the only ones who waste our precious time. being sucked into endless circular arguments is only holding us back and preventing us from moving into the future. yes, we live in troubling times. no, there is no easy answer. that doesn't mean that we should stop looking for them and start distracting and pacifying ourselves and each other with mindless rhetoric. If you have no suggestions in the way of solutions, in the way of progress, then stay out of forums such as these, where there is at least a chance for meaningful debate. I read these comments every day, and half of the discussion concerns the grammar of those involved and how commenters are either crazy right-wingers or crazy left-wingers. we are all humans, trapped within the maddening political dilemmas of our times, and we allow those in power to factionalize us and send us spinning in circles over which side of the line we stand on. the world is not that simple and never has been. there is no black and white, only shades of gray. we need to realize when our leaders are behaving in inhuman, digraceful ways and stand up to them in the name of the greater good.

    Posted by elijahjh at 04/23/2006 @ 3:23pm

22. Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/23/2006 @ 12:17am: I believe you have just answeared the question of how shrill and wacky the leftwing can get all while proded on by the fantasy's of Nichols and the Nation mag. and others not firmly attached to reality!

    Have I Riv? Let's see. You tell me which of the points I made is not firmly attached to reality and then we can discuss it:

    1) The Decider is threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran.

    2) The man is a delusional lunatic.

    3) It is not at all clear that the world can afford to wait until 2009.

    Are you at Yale where they are celebrating Islamic terrorism in between praising Mao and waving red books for HU?

    Ah no. Why? Are you?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 4:22pm

23. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/23/2006 @ 06:08am:If Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, many experts (including your 'friends' in France and Germany), think they are crazy enough to make 9/11 look like a minor incident.

    Repeat after me Moronificus: IRAN. DOES. NOT. HAVE. NUCLEAR. WEAPONS.

    Since the US does have nuclear weapons, many experts (including your 'friends' in France and Germany), think we are crazy enough to make 9/11 look like a minor incident.

    Maybe their President, after all, is serious when he says he's going to 'wipe Israel off the map, and soon.'

    Given that he doesn't have the capability, I'll be that he's not.

    And maybe the Decider, after all, is serious when he says the use of nuclear weapons against Iran is on the table.

    As is so often the case, the left allows its fanatical hatred of Bush to cloud whatever good sense it has, slim enough in any case. While you on the left like Elijah publish your raving hatred on this site, the world out their goes on.

    As best I can make out, nearly 2/3 of the country now hates the policies of Dear Leader. I guess that means the left has become quite a popular place to be.

    Oh well, you can always keep hiding under your bed with your cowardly warmongering buddies. "Oh please, Decider, protect us". What a damn wuss you are Moronificus.

    It has to do with an unreasoning hatred of Bush, or as Charles Krauthammer put it in his definition of Bush Derangement Syndrome

    Ah, the Krautster. The one who got virtually every single thing wrong in his pre-invasion analysis of Iraq. And we should listen to him why? Oh, I know. We like to be wrong?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 4:31pm

24. Posted by MASK 04/23/2006 @ 09:04am: Let me try to explain it again-

    Ah, more fantasy spin from the one who claims to be a democrat. Does it keep getting harder and harder Z?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 4:34pm

25. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/23/2006 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person

    Points taken....

    Oops, wait....you made none!

    Posted by Mask at 04/23/2006 @ 8:19pm

26. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/23/2006 @ 4:34pm: Points taken....

    Oops, wait....you made none!

    It wasn't a point. It was a question. Hence, the question mark at the end of the sentence. Does it keep getting harder and harder Z?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 8:41pm

27. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/23/2006 @ 4:31pm

    Repeat after me Moronificus: IRAN. DOES. NOT. HAVE. NUCLEAR. WEAPONS.

    Okay; Iran does not have nuclear weapons. But they will have them soon. And the adults, not yourself, will have to worry about it then. Are you geniuses on the left then going to present them as a fait accompli?

    Iran Flaunts Low-Level Enrichment to Conceal High-Powered Weaponizaton Plant

    DEBKAfile Exclusive Report

    April 14, 2006, 7:27 PM (GMT+02:00)

    Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim of Iranian success in low-level uranium enrichment was more bombastic than frank. Before springing his disclosure at a sacred mausoleum in the northern town of Mashhad on April 11, DEBKAfile's Iranian sources disclose he paid a stealthy visit to Neyshabour in Khorassan, 38 kms to the southeast.

    There, he inspected a project he omitted to mention in his Mashhad speech about low-level enrichment, namely, a top-secret plant under construction that is designed to run 155,000 centrifuges, enough to enrich uranium for 3-5 nuclear bombs a year.

    This is Project B, or the hidden face of the enrichment plant open to inspection at Natanz.

    This plant, due for completion next October, is scheduled to go on line at the end of 2007. According to our intelligence sources, running-in has begun at some sections of the Neyshabour installation, which is located 600 km northeast of Tehran. DEBKAfile's sources reveal too that the Neyshabour plant has been built 150 m deep under farmland covered with mixed vegetable crops and dubbed Shahid Moradian, in the name of a war martyr as obscure as its existence.

    Already hard at work at Iran's most ambitious nuclear project are hundreds of Iranian engineers, experts and assistants under the instruction of foreign specialists in the technology of centrifuge operation. Neyshabour is guarded day and night by the special Revolutionary Guards Corps elite Ansar al-Mahdi unit.

    In Moscow Thursday, April 13, US assistant secretary of state on arms control Stephen Rademaker calculated that, with 54,000 centrifuges, the Iranians could produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb in 16 days. He was referring to the statement by Iran's deputy nuclear chief Mohammed Saeed, who said his government planned to expand its enrichment program to 54,000 centrifuges from the 164 used in the small scale process announced Tuesday.

    According to this reckoning, the Neshabour installation, when ready to go in three years, will have three times the capacity of Natanz and be able to turn out 9-15 bombs a year.

    The clerical rulers in Tehran have long suspected the Americans or Israelis would eventually bomb Natanz out of existence. Therefore, four years ago, they began constructing its mirror - albeit on a far larger scale – in order to push ahead uninterrupted with enrichment for weapons, regardless of objections from the West, Israel and Arab neighbors.

    Russian experts completed the initial plans in 2003 and construction began in early 2004. In late 2005, Bulgarian transport planes delivered tens of thousands of centrifuges from Belarus and Ukraine; they were transported directly to Neyshabour. In January 2006, 23 Ukrainian engineers arrived to start installing the equipment, joined in February by 46 Belarusian nuclear experts who are working in shifts to prepare the 155,000 P-1 and P-2 centrifuges for operation.

    This compares with 60,000 in Nathanz – of which 40,000 are accessible for inspection while 20,000 are hidden in closed subterranean chambers.

    Neyshabour, however, still needs to undergo experimental stages, according to our Iranian sources. It is far from sure that the Ukrainian and Belarusian experts will be able to put together a well-synchronized centrifuge project that is workable in the long term.

    The Natanz project was long slowed by serious malfunctions in running the centrifuges purchased from Pakistan. They were only partially overcome lately. Now, Tehran needs three years to work in secret and in peace from outside interference and international inspections to achieve its first N-bomb.

    Tehran's "success" in enriching uranium, announced with fanfare last Tuesday, actually happened, according to our sources, eight months ago. Ahmadinejad timed his "disclosure" to achieve two goals:

    One, as a fait accompli that would force the world to acknowledge that Iran had joined the world's nuclear club as its eighth member, and two, to signal that the Islamic republic was close to achieving a nuclear weapon and capable of retaliating forcibly to international threats of penalties. Teheran's grandiose war games two weeks ago were staged for the same purpose.

    Russian and Chinese sources have their own interpretation of Tehran's motives. They believe the Iranian president's announcement was a knee-jerk reaction to the approaching UN Security Council deadline and the press reports of an approaching US military strike against its nuclear facilities. According to their theory, his bellicose stance was the prelude to a climb-down; Tehran would now announce its national objective has been accomplished and a line could be drawn on further advances.

    DEBKAfile's Iranian experts dismiss this theory as contrary to the mind-set of the Islamic republic's rulers. They are convinced that Tehran sought the universal condemnation it encountered; it proved to the Iranian public that in a hostile world, Iran is fully justified in its go-it-alone program for arming their country with a nuclear weapon.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/23/2006 @ 9:18pm

28. Let's see if we can give ORWELL 2 and 2 to see if he can make 4.

    Iran: Israel should be wiped off map

    President Ahmadinejad: Establishment of Israel offensive move; Islamic nation will not let its historic enemy live in its midst Ynet and agencies

    The State of Israel should be wiped off the map, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday, underscoring Teheran's extreme attitude towards the Jewish State.

    The Iranian leader's remarks were made during a convention entitled "A World Without Zionists."

    Regional Threat Syria gets Iranian boost / Ynetnews and Reuters Western diplomat says Iran made commitment to Syria to provide Iranian technical assistance to facilitate Syria's chemical warfare program

    "The establishment of the State of Israel was an offensive move. The Islamic nation will not let its historic enemy live in its midst," he said.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/23/2006 @ 9:23pm

29. Yeah, that Bush, he sure is delusional. What makes him think the Iranians are doing anything other than developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes?

    Iran's Nuclear Threat In another worrying development for the Bush administration, Iran moves closer to operation of a facility to enrich uranium By MASSIMO CALABRESI SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR

    Posted Saturday, Mar. 08, 2003 With war in Iraq looming and North Korea defiantly pursuing its own nuclear program, the last thing President Bush needs is another nuclear crisis. But that is what he may soon face in Iran. On a visit last month to Tehran, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei announced he had discovered that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium -- a key component of advanced nuclear weapons -- near Natanz. But diplomatic sources tell TIME the plant is much further along than previously revealed. The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced" and involves "hundreds" of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."

    Iran announced last week that it intends to activate a uranium conversion facility near Isfahan (under IAEA safeguards), a step that produces the uranium hexafluoride gas used in the enrichment process. Sources tell Time the IAEA has concluded that Iran actually introduced uranium hexafluoride gas into some centrifuges at an undisclosed location to test their ability to work. That would be a blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/23/2006 @ 9:26pm

30. Gosh, I guess Chirac is delusional too.

    But Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet. So why worry?

    Chirac: Iran risks sanctions over nuclear threat (Agencies) Updated: 2005-07-22 14:41

    Iran could face sanctions if negotiations with Europe fail to eliminate the threat of nuclear proliferation, French President Jacques Chirac said in an interview published Friday.

    Chirac said the issue would have to move to the U.N. Security Council if the talks failed.

    "I hope that (the European negotiations with Iran) will succeed and eliminate the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons," Chirac told the Haaretz daily.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/23/2006 @ 9:37pm

31. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/23/2006 @ 9:18pm: Okay; Iran does not have nuclear weapons. But they will have them soon.

    So how soon is "soon", Moronificus? Do your sources in the Iranian government tell you when "soon" is? Or, did you learn it from DebkaFILE, right after you finished perusing the section on "HOT ISRAELI WOMEN"?

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/23/2006 @ 9:23pm: Let's see if we can give ORWELL 2 and 2 to see if he can make 4.

    Don't you remember, Moronificus? True believers accept that 2+2=5 or whatever else the Decider tells you it equals.

    Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/23/2006 @ 9:26pm: Yeah, that Bush, he sure is delusional. What makes him think the Iranians are doing anything other than developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes?

    Exactly my point. I am glad that we are in agreement.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 9:59pm

32. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/23/2006 @ 9:59pm

    Exactly my point. I am glad that we are in agreement.

    Wow, you must be the only person in the free world who doesn't think Iran is developing nuclear weapons. So glad you could set us all straight.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/23/2006 @ 10:08pm

33. Here's a nice story of how the Decider suckered America [tinyurl.com] in 2002 with Iraq:

    BRADLEY: According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high level meeting at the White House.

    DRUMHELLER: The President, the Vice President, Dr. Rice…

    BRADLEY: And at that meeting…?

    DRUMHELLER: They were enthusiastic because they said they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis.

    BRADLEY: And what did this high level source tell you?

    DRUMHELLER: He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program.

    BRADLEY: So, in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?

    DRUMHELLER: Yes.

    BRADLEY: There's no doubt in your mind about that?

    DRUMHELLER: No doubt in my mind at all.

    BRADLEY: It directly contradicts, though, what the President and his staff were telling us.

    DRUMHELLER: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.

    What was it the Decider said? "fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." Apparently, the Decider had it wrong. Moronificus and the rest of the Patriotic Fighting Keyboarders can be fooled repeatedly.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 10:10pm

34. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/23/2006 @ 9:59pm

    Don't you remember, Moronificus? True believers accept that 2+2=5 or whatever else the Decider tells you it equals.

    And such impeccable logic, too. I'm impressed. Have you graduated high school yet?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/23/2006 @ 10:10pm

35. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/23/2006 @ 10:08pm: Wow, you must be the only person in the free world who doesn't think Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

    Wow, that sounds remarkably like what you morons said when you tried to bully reality in the run-up to the Iraq War. It wasn't persuasive then. It is even less so, now.

    So glad you could set us all straight.

    I don't think you could be set straight even if they put a steel rod down your spine. That's okay. Just keep on hiding under your bed with your cowardly warmongering buddies. "Oh please, Decider, protect me".

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 10:14pm

36. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/23/2006 @ 10:10pm: And such impeccable logic, too. I'm impressed.

    Thanks. Perhaps you should read just a wee bit more.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 10:16pm

37. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/23/2006 @ 10:14pm

    Wow, that sounds remarkably like what you morons said when you tried to bully reality in the run-up to the Iraq War. It wasn't persuasive then. It is even less so, now.

    Well, perhaps we could re-install Saddam for you. Would that make you happy?

    I don't think you could be set straight even if they put a steel rod down your spine. That's okay. Just keep on hiding under your bed with your cowardly warmongering buddies. "Oh please, Decider, protect me".

    I'll take Bush over delusional, raving lefties like yourself anyday, thanks.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/23/2006 @ 10:18pm

38. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/23/2006 @ 10:18pm: Well, perhaps we could re-install Saddam for you. Would that make you happy?

    It might make the 2300 dead American soldiers happy. And their families. And it might improve the happiness of the roughly 20,000 American soldiers injured in Iraq. And their families. But obviously, it would piss the shit out of you. Because you think getting rid of Saddam was worth THEIR lives.

    But, hey, you are right, Moronificus. Saddam was a dire threat to the US, just like Iran. Remind me again, MF, how, exactly, did Saddam threaten the US? And why, exactly, is the US better off now?

    I'll take Bush over delusional, raving lefties like yourself anyday, thanks.

    Right. I am not surprised. Because you are a scared little panty-weenie who is stupid enough to believe that the Decider will protect you from all of the ghosts and goblins that Fox and Rush and DebkaFile can inject into the great unfilled space within your head.

    And now, you are so consumed with fear that you somehow think that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will make you safer. The world would be much safer if you just stayed cowering under your bed.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 10:31pm

39. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/23/2006 @ 10:31pm

    It might make the 2300 dead American soldiers happy. And their families. And it might improve the happiness of the roughly 20,000 American soldiers injured in Iraq. And their families. But obviously, it would piss the shit out of you. Because you think getting rid of Saddam was worth THEIR lives.

    Most American soldiers and their families fully understand the importance of the Iraq War. I'm sure your concern for them has nothing to do with them, and everything to do with your hatred for George Bush.

    Remind me again, MF, how, exactly, did Saddam threaten the US? And why, exactly, is the US better off now?

    Wow, aren't you the tough anonymous guy with the keyboard? LOL

    If you still need reminding, I'm sure my doing so again will do you little good. Try reading or listening to any one of Bush's foreign policy speeches over the last 4 years, it's pretty well explained there. If you still don't understand what those reasons are and are not capable of discussing them, then I fully admit that your ignorance is impenetrable by myself.

    Right. I am not surprised. Because you are a scared little panty-weenie who is stupid enough to believe that the Decider will protect you from all of the ghosts and goblins that Fox and Rush and DebkaFile can inject into the great unfilled space within your head.

    Oooh yeah, that's very persuasive.

    And now, you are so consumed with fear that you somehow think that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will make you safer.

    I didn't say we should, and neither did Bush. But it's an option that any responsible leader will have to consider. But not being responsible, I'm sure you'll have trouble understanding that.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/23/2006 @ 10:43pm

40. More info on Iran's nuclear weapons program, ORWELL. The only thing I can't do for you is read them to you and make you understand them. Perhaps you can get one of the adults you know to show you how to use the Google search engine, and read the articles to you while explaining some of the bigger words. Then maybe you'll be ready to debate the issue in terms other than 'Bush bad'.

    January 19, 2006 Print | Send this article | Feedback ----

    CHIRAC WARNS TERRORISTS

    France Has Nuclear Retaliation Option

    By Kim Rahir in Paris

    So much for European softness on Iran. French President Jacques Chirac on Thursday threatened states developing weapons of mass destruction with nuclear retaliation. He's also trying to reposition France on the world political stage.

    http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,396191,00.html

    Iran switching to improved P-2 centrifuges in underground facilities near Pakistan Iran plans to rapidly expand uranium enrichment by deploying an advanced centrifuge to accelerate nuclear fuel production. Teheran has been testing the P-2 centrifuge, deemed a significant improvement over Iran's P-1 model. Western intelligence sources said Iran has already been using the P-2 in underground facilities located in eastern Iran near the border with Pakistan.

    http://www.geostrategy-direct.com/geostrategy%2Ddirect/

    Posted by pontificus at 04/23/2006 @ 11:01pm

41. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/23/2006 @ 10:31pm: Most American soldiers and their families fully understand the importance of the Iraq War.

    Because, you see, Moronificus has spoken with the 2300 dead American soldiers, and they all agree that they fully understand the importance of the Iraq War and they are proud that they died for the Cause of Getting Rid Of The Non Existent WMD..., wait no..., it was the Cause of Eliminating Iraq's Non-Existent Ties To Al Qaeda..., wait no... it was the Cause of Planting the Non-Existent Seed Of Democracy In The Heart Of The Middle East... wait no, I got it, it was the Cause of ???. Yeah. That's the ticket. And most of the 2300 dead American soldiers that Moronificus spoke with agreed that it was well worth it to die for So Noble A Cause. Hell, Moronificus get so hopped-up speaking with the dead american soldiers, he's thinking of heading over to Iraq and dying himself.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 11:24pm

42. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/23/2006 @ 10:43pm: I'm sure your concern for them has nothing to do with them, and everything to do with your hatred for George Bush.

    Absolutely. Because, as you certainly know, any criticism of the Decider's policies can only be motivated by a deep personal hatred of the Decider. For the Decider works hard and is always right. A truely patriotic American would never question the policies of the Decider.

    That is why the Decider must sometimes decree that 2+2 does indeed equal 5, if he lovingly determines such a decree is necessary to secure the country from terrorist attacks. And in some ways it is a test. For the truely patriotic Americans will believe, in the deepest parts of their souls, that 2+2 does indeed equal 5, once the Decider deems it so. And any who continue to question that 2+2 does indeed equal 5, only do so out of a deep and abiding hatred of our savior, the Decider.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 11:24pm

43. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/23/2006 @ 10:43pmRemind me again, MF, how, exactly, did Saddam threaten the US? And why, exactly, is the US better off now?

    Wow, aren't you the tough anonymous guy with the keyboard? LOL

    To clarify, MF was an abbreviation for Moronificus, not what you apparently took it to mean. I apologize for the misinterpretation.

    If you still need reminding, I'm sure my doing so again will do you little good. Try reading or listening to any one of Bush's foreign policy speeches over the last 4 years, it's pretty well explained there.

    Unbelievable. You don't know, do you Moronificus? After all your blathering, you can't come up with a single answer to either question. Read the Decider's speeches. That's the best you can do. I think you are worthy of a shorter name. How about simply Moron?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 11:24pm

44. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/23/2006 @ 10:43pm: But it's [nuking Iran] an option that any responsible leader will have to consider.

    Please explain to me M, under what circumstances nuking Iran would be a responsible act?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 11:24pm

45. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/23/2006 @ 11:20pm: I for one will no longer engage in their insanity. I will limit myself to dialogue with those who actually seek reasoned debate and exhibit some level of openmindedness. I will post some commentary where appropriate, but it is evident that most of the radical left who blog here only look for the opportunity to feed on their Bush hatred. Liberal objectivity, tolerance and reason have no place in their mindset.

    Gee Love. Sorry to see you go. Try RedState.org. They live in a similar parallel reality of "facts".

    Or, you could just hit the "ignore this person" thingy, and be done with me.

    But then that wouldn't give you the ability to issue your passionate plea for a reasoned reality-based discourse of facts, would it Love?. Of course, to Love, facts are things like Iran has demonstrated for more than 27 years that they intend to wreak havoc, death, and destruction to anyone who is Christian or Jew.. Or maybe Iran's...nuclear program all indicate to rational, thinking people that Iran has evil and aggressive intentions.. Or, my personal fave They [Orwell and many like him/her on this site] are consumed with the hatred of Bush and Conservatism so much that their world and national myopia has become incurable..

    Its not the hatred, Love, its just that all of his policies have been such miserable failures. Perhaps you can tell the incurably myopic among us, looking wistfully backward over the past 5+ years, what do you think the Decider's 10 greatest accomplishments have been?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/23/2006 @ 11:46pm

46. speaking of points, what is your point, pontificus? Apparently bush is not deserving of impeachment in your eyes and you'd rather distract us with the Iran debate. please, tell us why bush is not worthy of impeachment. please, tell us how much you love him for all the wonderful things he's done, and please, tell us how jesus is your personal savior and bush carries out his will on earth. please.

    Posted by elijahjh at 04/23/2006 @ 11:47pm

47. And has anybody noticed how QUICKLY Mr Nichols drops his impeachment articles....for something else?

    Like it's a cookie or candy he throws in, every now and then, and then goes back to the "meat and potatoes" articles?

    I think, despite all, that he's a lot smarter than most of his bloggers and KNOWS the REALITY and chances of the "spineless Dems" (Bankruptcy, Alito, Feingold censure) growing a spine if they win the majority and impeaching Bush.

    Posted by Mask at 04/24/2006 @ 10:50am

48. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/23/2006 @ 11:24pm

    Unbelievable. You don't know, do you Moronificus? After all your blathering, you can't come up with a single answer to either question. Read the Decider's speeches. That's the best you can do. I think you are worthy of a shorter name. How about simply Moron?

    Actually, rather than direct you to any of the dozens of speeches that Bush has made on the subject, and which you devoutly ignore in your Bush hatred, how about if I let Natan Scharansky paraphrase the Bush doctrine for you. He's a lot more articulate than I am.

    For decades, a "realism" based on a myopic perception of international stability prevailed in the policy-making debate. For a brief period during the Cold War, the realist policy of accommodating Soviet tyranny was replaced with a policy that confronted that tyranny and made democracy and human rights inside the Soviet Union a litmus test for superpower relations.

    The enormous success of such a policy in bringing the Cold War to a peaceful end did not stop most policy makers from continuing to advocate an approach to international stability that was based on coddling "friendly" dictators and refusing to support the aspirations of oppressed peoples to be free.

    Then came Sept. 11, 2001. It seemed as though that horrific day had made it clear that the price for supporting "friendly" dictators throughout the Middle East was the creation of the world's largest breeding ground of terrorism. A new political course had to be charted.

    Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world possesses in this struggle is the awesome power of its ideas.

    The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008281

    Note the irony that it is the self-righteous left than now clamors for 'peace at any price', and the leaving of murderous dictators alone. As I have said many times, it is your blind hatred of George Bush that has made you folks on the left take leave of whatever good sense you have. It is these policies, not your hatred of George Bush, that you should be discussing on these forums.

    We can no longer afford the luxury of leaving dangerous regimes like Saddam's Iraq alone in the post-9/11 world, ORWELL; not when WMD's are within reach of the most unbalanced, fanatical minds in the world. What you seem to have forgot in your blind hate is that it is the terrorist fanatics who are the enemy, not George Bush. But the American people have not forgotten, thank god.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/24/2006 @ 3:01pm

49. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/23/2006 @ 11:24pm

    Please explain to me M, under what circumstances nuking Iran would be a responsible act?

    In a few short years, if not sooner, Iran will have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Their President has declared quite openly his intent to use them to 'wipe Israel off the map'.

    You seem quite willing to gamble the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children on the random chance that he's kidding. The rest of us may not be feeling quite so lucky.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/24/2006 @ 3:09pm

50. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/23/2006 @ 11:20pm

    The Orwells of this country and the world will never take their heads out of the sands long enough to respect the threats of evil in this world. For them the only evil is internal whenever someone to the right of FDR gets in office. Even FDR today would be attacked by the likes of Orwell though. FDR actually decided to take on some of the evil in the world while at the same time setting up the opportunity for the communists to run rampant in the world for decades after FDR's death.

    No amount of facts, the laying out of historical records to demonstrate how certain cultures have retained their murderous intent towards mankind, not even the facts from those like the Europeans who while only a step above the Orwell's at least realize the very real threat to the world from Iran. Iran has demonstrated for more than 27 years that they intend to wreak havoc, death, and destruction to anyone who is Christian or Jew. No one has spent more in support of major terrorist organizations during this time than Iran.

    Iran's purchase and development of Submarines, long range and short range missles, and their nuclear program all indicate to rational, thinking people that Iran has evil and aggressive intentions. Not to mention that they publicly announce that is the case.

    It has become obvious to me that Orwell and many like him/her on this site care nothing for the facts. They are consumed with the hatred of Bush and Conservatism so much that their world and national myopia has become incurable. No amount of factual information or 3rd party evidence will suffice for this type of radicalism. It is not worthy of response.

    I certainly agree that a large percentage of the leftist acolytes are beyond the power of rational persuasion. I have even said so on occasion. After all,

    Every man prefers belief to the exercise of judgment. Seneca

    or:

    You cannot educate a man wholly out of the superstitious fears which were implanted in his imagination, no matter how utterly his reason may reject them. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., The Poet at the Breakfast Table, 1872

    For a lot of these guys, Bush really is the devil incarnate. Bush has been blamed for anything and everything that has gone wrong the last few years, even natural disasters:

    The number of things that Bush has been blamed for in this world since 9/11 (even acts of God like Tsunamis, hurricanes and other natural disasters) is the stuff of major comedy. You name the horrible event, and he is identified as the etiologic agent.

    He is blamed when he does something (anything) and he is blamed when he does nothing. He is blamed for things that ocurred even before he was President, as well as everything that has happened since. He is blamed for things he says; and for things he doesn't say.

    The insane lengths to which Bush hatred has gone in this country would be funny if we weren't actually trying to fight a war against religous fanatics at the same time. But maybe we're fighting at home against a different type of religious fanatic?

    But I'm not trying to change ORWELL's mind, not really, because I don't really think that that is possible. It's the other people who read this stuff and say nothing who I'm speaking to.

    I for one will no longer engage in their insanity. I will limit myself to dialogue with those who actually seek reasoned debate and exhibit some level of openmindedness. I will post some commentary where appropriate, but it is evident that most of the radical left who blog here only look for the opportunity to feed on their Bush hatred. Liberal objectivity, tolerance and reason have no place in their mindset.

    Yes, it is remarkable that those who speak so admirably of their own virtue of diversity are the least able to handle ideas that don't rigidly conform to their views of the world. That those who proclaim most loudly their own tolerance, are least tolerant of those who disagree. After all,

    Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right. ~Laurens van der Post

    Posted by pontificus at 04/24/2006 @ 4:12pm

51. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/24/2006 @ 3:01pm: Long quote from Sharansky about the Bush Doctrine

    M, I didn't ask you what the Bush Doctrine was. Unfortunately, I am all too familiar with it. I asked you how, exactly, did Saddam threaten the US? And why, exactly, is the US better off now? Apparently you don't have an answer. Maybe you should ask Rush for some help?

    We can no longer afford the luxury of leaving dangerous regimes like Saddam's Iraq alone in the post-9/11 world, ORWELL; not when WMD's are within reach of the most unbalanced, fanatical minds in the world.

    Gee, and this makes sense why? IRAQ. DID. NOT. HAVE. WMD.

    and you know what else:

    IRAN. DOES. NOT. HAVE. WMD.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/24/2006 @ 4:21pm

52. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/24/2006 @ 3:09pm: Their President has declared quite openly his intent to use them [nuclear weapons] to 'wipe Israel off the map'.

    No, he has not.

    You seem quite willing to gamble the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children on the random chance that he's kidding. The rest of us may not be feeling quite so lucky.

    And you seem quite willing to eliminate the gamble and to drop nukes on Iran, resulting in the murder of hundreds of thousands, dispersed across at least 4 countries. The rest of us may not be feeling quite so immoral.

    Iran does not have the capability of wiping Israel off the map. Even if Iran were to someday acquire a handful of nuclear weapons, they would not have the capability of wiping Israel off the map, without assuring their own complete destruction. Israel has over 300 nuclear weapons.

    Tell me, oh great wise M, how is Iran different from China? China has nuclear weapons. They issue hostile and threatening statements towards a US ally (who, we are obligated by treaty to defend, unlike Israel). They are not a democracy. They have an absymal human rights record. Should we nuke China? If not, why not?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/24/2006 @ 4:34pm

53. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/24/2006 @ 4:34pm

    No, he has not.

    Okay, tell me which part of this article you do not understand:

    Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map

    Wednesday 26 October 2005, 19:03 Makka Time, 16:03 GMT

    Ahmadinejad addressed students at a conference Related: Anti-Israel rabbis support Iran Iran 'clarifies' remarks on Israel Iran condemned over anti-Israel call Ahmadinejad remarks spark furore Ahmadinejad blasts US in UN speech Profile: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

    Tools: Email Article Print Article Send Your Feedback

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

    "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

    "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

    "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

    And you seem quite willing to eliminate the gamble and to drop nukes on Iran, resulting in the murder of hundreds of thousands, dispersed across at least 4 countries. The rest of us may not be feeling quite so immoral.

    The only nuclear strikes under consideration involve the buried underground nuclear weapons production facilities at Natanz and elsewhere. Where do you get the 'hundreds of thousands' from?

    Iran does not have the capability of wiping Israel off the map. Even if Iran were to someday acquire a handful of nuclear weapons, they would not have the capability of wiping Israel off the map, without assuring their own complete destruction. Israel has over 300 nuclear weapons.

    You're assuming rational behavior here. Do you think the 9/11 hijackers were rational in their beliefs? Do you think that the suicide bombers are rational? If Imperial Japan had nuclear weapons had had nuclear weapons, do you think that they would have been rational? Do you think all of our enemies will act rationally?

    Tell me, oh great wise M, how is Iran different from China? China has nuclear weapons. They issue hostile and threatening statements towards a US ally (who, we are obligated by treaty to defend, unlike Israel). They are not a democracy. They have an absymal human rights record. Should we nuke China? If not, why not?

    We should not nuke China because they are rational people. They are not religious fanatics. For the same reasons, we did not nuke Soviet Russia. That's why.

    And nobody is calling for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran just yet. Only that the option must be on the table, as it is with any nuclear power.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/24/2006 @ 4:56pm

54. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/24/2006 @ 4:21pm

    M, I didn't ask you what the Bush Doctrine was. Unfortunately, I am all too familiar with it. I asked you how, exactly, did Saddam threaten the US? And why, exactly, is the US better off now? Apparently you don't have an answer. Maybe you should ask Rush for some help?

    Here, I'll reiterate to you the part of the Bush Doctrine which has to do with the removal of dictatorships, since you're apparently having trouble locating it for yourself. Did you even bother to read it?

    Then came Sept. 11, 2001. It seemed as though that horrific day had made it clear that the price for supporting "friendly" dictators throughout the Middle East was the creation of the world's largest breeding ground of terrorism. A new political course had to be charted.

    Iraq was part of the breeding ground for terrorism. Saddam used to pay $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Perhaps you were unaware of that. Now that we are bothering to translate the documents for his regime, we are finding a lot of indications that Saddam was sponsoring terrorists. Obviously, we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq instead of in Manhattan and Washington DC, which is a good thing. The government of Afghanistan is no longer harboring Al Qaeda and cutting people into pieces in public ceremonies. These are also good things.

    Although the world's biggest sponsor of terror, Iran, is still mostly untouched, their sphere of operation is being reduced. That's part of the strategy that Bush has laid out many times, unfortunately, he can't force you to listen.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/24/2006 @ 5:10pm

55. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/24/2006 @ 4:56pm: Okay, tell me which part of this article you do not understand.

    The part where he threatens Israel with his imaginary nuclear weapons. Your original statement of "fact" was Their President has declared quite openly his intent to use them [nuclear weapons] to 'wipe Israel off the map'.

    The only nuclear strikes under consideration involve the buried underground nuclear weapons production facilities at Natanz and elsewhere. Where do you get the 'hundreds of thousands' from?

    Scientists [tinyurl.com].

    We should not nuke China because they are rational people. They are not religious fanatics. For the same reasons, we did not nuke Soviet Russia. That's why.

    Got it. Nukes should only be used against religious fanatics. Understood. Excellent point.

    And nobody is calling for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran just yet. Only that the option must be on the table, as it is with any nuclear power.

    Right. You're just calling for the threatening them with nukes. We would never use them, because we are "rational people". Got it. Thanks.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/24/2006 @ 5:11pm

56. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/24/2006 @ 5:10pm: Iraq was part of the breeding ground for terrorism.

    You apparently live in a separate reality. Iraq was NOT part of a breeding ground for terrorism until we invaded their country and brought Mad Max style anarchy to their nation.

    And now? Oh right. Iraq is a wonderful training ground for terrorists. I can see why you think we done good.

    Iraq was part of the breeding ground for terrorism. Saddam used to pay $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. Perhaps you were unaware of that. Now that we are bothering to translate the documents for his regime, we are finding a lot of indications that Saddam was sponsoring terrorists. Obviously, we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq instead of in Manhattan and Washington DC, which is a good thing. The government of Afghanistan is no longer harboring Al Qaeda and cutting people into pieces in public ceremonies. These are also good things.

    So, to summarize, it was worth it because:

    * Iraq was paying money to the families of Palestinean suicide bombers. And now, there are no more Palestinean suicide bombers.

    * We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. Because, there is no way in hell that they could possibly attack us here while we are occupying Iraq.

    * The Taliban are no longer in power in Afghanistan. And this would not be true if we had not invaded Iraq.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/24/2006 @ 5:22pm

57. ORWELL wrote

    Tell me, oh great wise M, how is Iran different from China? China has nuclear weapons. They issue hostile and threatening statements towards a US ally (who, we are obligated by treaty to defend, unlike Israel). They are not a democracy. They have an absymal human rights record. Should we nuke China? If not, why not?

    More about China here. For one thing, China is undergoing internal reforms and change on its own. True, they are still nominally communist, but the hope here is that the coming years will see a change of attitude as they gain economically and see that they have more to gain by peace than to lose through war.

    Taiwan is certainly in danger. The conquest of Taiwan, by military force if necessary, is hugely significant culturally to Chinese of all classes, most particularly the Chinese ruling class. But the Chinese rulers are not fools, and they are a very patient lot, and we should all be quite aware that they are awaiting an opportunity to seize Taiwan. They are quite actively and openly building a strike force which would be capable of isolating and invading Taiwan. Such an opportunity would arise with practically any Democrat in the White Hosue, who I'm sure we all recognize, none of which would go to war to protect Taiwan.

    But above all, nuclear strikes are not an option with China. China has too many weapons and too much capability to strike back, even if such an attack made sense in other ways, which it does not. Containment has always shown to be the best policy with Communists. For religious fanatics like the Iranians, who think suicide strikes may be the quickest way to heaven, this obviously may not be the best policy. Is all this starting to make sense?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/24/2006 @ 5:24pm

58. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/24/2006 @ 5:22pm

    Iraq was a part of the problem, as was Afghanistan. Maybe you don't have a problem with the Afghanistan war, but there are many in your camp who did.

    Iraq was NOT part of a breeding ground for terrorism until we invaded their country and brought Mad Max style anarchy to their nation.

    That is an opinion, not a fact. It's obviously not 100 percent true, for we know for a fact that Saddam was sponsoring Palestinian suicide bombers. Sure, not all of them, Iran is sponsoring many of them too. But Bush never said he was going to get all of them, just some of them in Iraq. And you're saying that you know for sure that that was the only terrorist connection that Saddam had?

    At the heart of your argument is that Bush is not only wrong that Iraq was a part of the terrorist problem, but lying about his reasons to go to Iraq. If Bush is lying, what is your alternative thesis?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/24/2006 @ 5:33pm

59. Pontificus pontificated thusly:

    For one thing, China is undergoing internal reforms and change on its own. True, they are still nominally communist, but the hope here is that the coming years will see a change of attitude as they gain economically and see that they have more to gain by peace than to lose through war.

    Isn't Iran "nominally democratic"? Aren't they already on the road that China has yet to turn onto? If we're just going to attack wacko religious people, we could bring the army home. Even easier, we could probably have one portion of our army attack the other.

    And you get "breeding ground" for terrorists in Iraq out of the information that he might have tossed cash to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers? That's it? Toss money to some people and you're breeding them? If that's the case, then we have bred every terrorist in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. since we have tossed a more than pocket change to these countries. Hell, you could say right now that we are the "breeding ground" of every "terrorist" we face throughout Baghdad.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/24/2006 @ 6:16pm

60. And this

    At the heart of your argument is that Bush is not only wrong that Iraq was a part of the terrorist problem, but lying about his reasons to go to Iraq. If Bush is lying, what is your alternative thesis?

    requires another try. I haven't a clue what this means. So...you want us to assume Bush is lying and then concoct another reason why he might have invaded Iraq? Have we just dug a trench so that the bar for presidential decisions can be placed at a previously unthinkably low level?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/24/2006 @ 6:19pm

61. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 04/24/2006 @ 6:16pm

    Isn't Iran "nominally democratic"? Aren't they already on the road that China has yet to turn onto?

    I don't know if you'd call Iran nominally democratic or not. But we do know that their government is the main sponsor of terrorism of all kinds in the world, most importantly including fanatical suicide bombers who will kill as many people as possible, the more innocent the better. Their government, which has also publicly stated that their goal is to wipe Israel off the map, is running a crash nuclear weapons program. One would hope that the differences between China and Iran are not lost on you, but in any case they are not lost on the people whose responsiblity is to protect us and our allies from terrorism.

    If we're just going to attack wacko religious people, we could bring the army home. Even easier, we could probably have one portion of our army attack the other.

    I suppose that's some kind of joke. But actually, I don't think it's necessary to weigh options regarding all wacko religious people, just those who have made it a demonstrated habit to take seriously their religious duty to kill non-believers and who have nuclear weapons programs about to come to fruition, and missiles able to deliver said nuclear weapons. And in case the missiles fail, plenty of religious fanatics eager to deliver the weapons in person.

    And you get "breeding ground" for terrorists in Iraq out of the information that he might have tossed cash to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers? That's it?

    Not might. Did. And we know that Saddam was providing safe haven for terrorists like Abu Nidal. And although the connections aren't fully known. Nobody knows for sure what the other terrorist contacts were, but we cannot rule them out yet. Certainly nobody knows at this point enough to say whether there was or was not an Al Quada connection, and if there was how strong was it.

    Toss money to some people and you're breeding them?

    That's certainly a strong element of it, yes.

    If that's the case, then we have bred every terrorist in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. since we have tossed a more than pocket change to these countries. Hell, you could say right now that we are the "breeding ground" of every "terrorist" we face throughout Baghdad.

    Yeah, right. If you're some kind of unhinged left-winger that doesn't know your ass from your elbow, maybe. Out in the real world? Not.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/24/2006 @ 7:01pm

62. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 04/24/2006 @ 6:19pm

    And this

    At the heart of your argument is that Bush is not only wrong that Iraq was a part of the terrorist problem, but lying about his reasons to go to Iraq. If Bush is lying, what is your alternative thesis?

    requires another try. I haven't a clue what this means. So...you want us to assume Bush is lying and then concoct another reason why he might have invaded Iraq? Have we just dug a trench so that the bar for presidential decisions can be placed at a previously unthinkably low level?

    No, what I am saying is that much of the criticism of Bush seems to implicitly assume that his stated reasons for invading Iraq were a lie. If he lied, why did he do it? To get rich? Well, then he failed. To get Iraq's oil? Failed again. To create a puppet state? Not going very well.

    Actually, it seems that the only thing the left requires these days is a fanatical and dedicated hatred to damage Bush in any way possible. Not to fight the war on terror in some alternative way. Not to help the country. Just to fight Bush in any and every way possible. My question was, what is your point?

    Posted by pontificus at 04/24/2006 @ 7:09pm

63. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/24/2006 @ 5:24pm: More about China here. For one thing, China is undergoing internal reforms and change on its own. True, they are still nominally communist, but the hope here is that the coming years will see a change of attitude as they gain economically and see that they have more to gain by peace than to lose through war.

    You seem quite willing to gamble the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children on the random hope that China will change their attitude. The rest of us may not be feeling quite so lucky.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/24/2006 @ 8:53pm

64. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/24/2006 @ 5:24pm: But above all, nuclear strikes are not an option with China. China has too many weapons and too much capability to strike back, even if such an attack made sense in other ways, which it does not.

    And there we have it. The Moronificus view of non-proliferation. We threaten to nuke countries that don't have nukes. Once they get nukes, we deal with it and hope that they will change their attitude.

    I'm sure that this policy will be quite successful in convincing other nations that it is in their interests to refrain from acquiring nukes.

    Containment has always shown to be the best policy with Communists. For religious fanatics like the Iranians, who think suicide strikes may be the quickest way to heaven, this obviously may not be the best policy.

    Ah, I got it. We contain Communists. We nuke religious fanatics (unless, I assume, they are Christian religious fanatics). I think I have almost got it. But what happens if a country of religious fanatics goes communist? Do we nuke or contain? Which has higher priority - communism or religious fanaticism?

    Is all this starting to make sense?

    No, not in the least. Did you think it would?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/24/2006 @ 9:00pm

65. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/24/2006 @ 5:33pm: At the heart of your argument is that Bush is not only wrong that Iraq was a part of the terrorist problem, but lying about his reasons to go to Iraq. If Bush is lying, what is your alternative thesis?

    You are laughable, M. I asked you how we were threatened by Iraq and how we are better off now that we are occupying Iraq. After several non-responsive answers, you now shrug your shoulders and say "Beats me. Why do you think the lying scumbag did it?".

    Well, I am sure that whatever the reason was, it was indeed a Noble Cause. You should be very proud of your defense of the Decider, M. You have been very convincing. The Decider will be pleased.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/24/2006 @ 9:04pm

66. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/24/2006 @ 7:01pm: Their [Iran's] government, which has also publicly stated that their goal is to wipe Israel off the map, is running a crash nuclear weapons program.

    Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true. There has been NO EVIDENCE that Iran is running a crash nuclear weapons program. But keep saying it. It's apparently the most effective argument you can come up with.

    One would hope that the differences between China and Iran are not lost on you

    Nope. I got the difference. China might be able to fight back. Iran can't. Isn't that it?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/24/2006 @ 9:26pm

67. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/24/2006 @ 7:01pm: I suppose that's some kind of joke. But actually, I don't think it's necessary to weigh options regarding all wacko religious people, just those who have made it a demonstrated habit to take seriously their religious duty to kill non-believers and who have nuclear weapons programs about to come to fruition, and missiles able to deliver said nuclear weapons. And in case the missiles fail, plenty of religious fanatics eager to deliver the weapons in person.

    You lost me there, M. It sounds like you are now advocating an attack on the US. Do you really think that would be helpful?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/24/2006 @ 9:28pm

68. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/24/2006 @ 7:01pm: Nobody knows for sure what the other terrorist contacts were, but we cannot rule them out yet.

    Why didn't you just say so? Sounds like a good reason to blow up their country and ours. Silly me. I thought we didn't have a reason. Now I understand that is was because we can't rule out having a reason that we may discover at some point in the future.

    Certainly nobody knows at this point enough to say whether there was or was not an Al Quada connection, and if there was how strong was it.

    Try this: Certainly nobody knows at this point enough to say whether or not Moronificus is directly tied to Al Queda, and if he is, how strong it is. Sounds like a good reason to invade your head, don't ya think?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/24/2006 @ 9:34pm

69. Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/24/2006 @ 7:09pm: Not to help the country. Just to fight Bush in any and every way possible.

    Fighting the Decider in any and every way possible is helping the country.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 04/24/2006 @ 9:45pm

70. Pontificus,

    What you describe as lies or mistakes on the part of us trying to make sense out of our invasion of Iraq could be a simple case of incompetence. Don't overlook the obvious. If you want to look one step beyond the obvious, then you might just ask "look to the President's speeches" to determine why the hell he did what he did. If you find discrepancies between speech and action--and you will, don't blame us.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/24/2006 @ 10:40pm

71. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/24/2006 @ 9:45pm

    Fighting the Decider in any and every way possible is helping the country.

    So in the day and age where terrorists are attacking our country directly, you on the left think the best thing to do is fight our elected President. You all go on indulging your hate, the rest of us will deal with reality for you.

    Here's a synopsis of your condition:

    It has to do with an unreasoning hatred of Bush, or as Charles Krauthammer put it in his definition of Bush Derangement Syndrome:

    "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."

    What is going on here--I mean, besides the usual opportunist agenda of the Leftist/Socialist/Communist remnants of the last century? I have discussed this issue several times in this blog, but the dynamics bear repeating because the lies keep getting repeated; and so the hysteria continues.

    The psychology of some of the Bush Haters is pretty cut and dried. They hate Bush because he stands between them and the implementation of their collectivist "utopian" vision. I have no time to waste on them, except to note that their intentions are deliberately and decidedly malevolent toward this country. They want it to fail at anything and everything it does and they openly cheer for the barbarians at the gate.

    They are indistinguishable from the barbarians we are actively fighting, with the only difference being that they have different ideas about which group of thugs will be in charge of the "utopia". They prefer themselves--a more secularly-oriented set of thugs--to rule.

    But what about the average person on the street who has, or has come to have a visceral hatred of President Bush? Perhaps they simply didn't vote for him in 2000, believing the media propaganda or caricature of his intellect and capabilities; or perhaps they simply didn't like him because he was from the opposition party, or a Texan. or any other number of normal reasons.

    It seems to me that the Democrats and the Left have used their continuous propaganda well, but there is a also a strong personal psychological factor involved in being able to convince normally sane people that the source of all evil in the world is George W. Bush.

    After 9/11, in many cases, even a mild dislike of "W" rapidly morphed into the ferocious Bush hatred we are now all familiar with. The opposition to a conservative Republican; and reasonable disagreement with his policies became a swooning hysteria; and an unmitigated, deranged hatred with all the accompanying paranoid delusions.

    Virginia Postrel recounted this insight:

    When I was in New York a few weeks ago, a friend in the magazine business told me he thinks the ferocious Bush hating that he sees in New York is a way of calming the haters' fears of terrorism. It's not rational, but it's psychologically plausible--blame the cause you can control, at least indirectly through elections, rather than the threats you have no control over. I thought of that insight today when I glanced at Maureen Dowd's column and read this sentence, "Maybe it's because George Bush is relaxing at his ranch down there (again) while Osama is planning a big attack up here (again)."

    That is the voice of a petulant child, angry that she has a tummy ache while Daddy is at work or Mommy is visiting a friend, or the voice of a grouchy wife angry that she has a migraine while her husband is out coaching the kids' baseball team. You're upset that you're in pain (we've all been there), so you get mad at someone whose presence wouldn't make the pain any better. No mature student of politics believes the president of the United States goofs off on vacation. It's not the kind of job you escape. George Bush may be completely insane to voluntarily. spend July in Texas--as opposed to Bill Clinton's favored coastal retreats--but Osama bin Laden is no more or less a threat than in Bush were in Washington. But if blaming Bush makes people feel better, safer, or at least able to focus their anger on someone they can hurt, they'll blame Bush.

    The number of things that Bush has been blamed for in this world since 9/11 (even acts of God like Tsunamis, hurricanes and other natural disasters) is the stuff of major comedy. You name the horrible event, and he is identified as the etiologic agent.

    He is blamed when he does something (anything) and he is blamed when he does nothing. He is blamed for things that ocurred even before he was President, as well as everything that has happened since. He is blamed for things he says; and for things he doesn't say.

    What makes Bush Hatred completely insane however, is the almost delusional degree of unremitting certitude of Bush's evil; while simultaneously believing that the TRUE perpetrators of evil in the world are somehow good and decent human beings with the world's intersts at heart.

    This psychological defense mechanism is referred to as "displacement".

    One way you can usually tell that an individual is using displacement is that the emotion being displaced (e.g., anger) is all out of proportion to the reality of the situation. The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with the actual reality. Instead, by using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger, but it is directed at a less threatening target than the real cause. In this way, the individual does not have to be responsible for the consequences of his/her anger and feels more safe--even thought that is not the case.

    This explains the remarkable and sometimes lunatic appeasement of Islamofascists by so many governments and around the world, while they trash the US and particularly Bush. It explains why there is more emphasis on protecting the "rights" of terrorists, rather than holding them accountable for their actions (thier actions, by the way are also Bush's fault, according to those in the throes of BDS). Our soldiers in Iraq are being killed because of Bush--not because of terrorist intent and behavior. Terrorist activity itself is blamed on Bush no matter where it occurs.

    It isn't even a stretch of the imagination for some to blame 9/11 on Bush. This is the insane "logic" of most psychological defense mechanisms. They temporarily spare you from the painful reality around you and give you the illusion that you are still in control.

    This is exactly the illusion/delusion circulating in the minds of many of the Bush Haters. They want desperately to forget that there is a tidal wave of terror reverberating around the world and to pretend that everything is America's and Bush's fault. If that is true, then they will still be in control of events.

    So what do they do? They lionize terrorists like Zarqawi ("freedom-fighters"). They explain away the horror and brutality by refering to them as "insurgents" and "militants". They support Palestinian suicide bombings as justified and see the Palestinians--not as independent agents acting of choice, but as victims of America and Israel.

    They sincerely believe that Osama is a reasonable person and seek dialog with him; but that Bush is not. They threaten violence toward Bush and hold demonstrations; and placate and enable those who would implement Sharia Law in their country without a qualm. Hundreds of their fellow countrymen are murdered by terrorists, but they demand that troops be pulled out of Iraq (thinking that if they hadn't cooperated with the evil BushHitler, their countrymen would have been spared).

    Rather than blame the terrorists; rather than admiting they have to take action against them; their fear is transformed to anger and displaced onto President Bush. If everything is his fault, then the reality of what happened does not have to be faced (this also explains the intense psychological denial that these same individuals tend to have about 9/11).

    Bush becomes the "criminal mastermind", so devious, so evil, that everything he says is a "lie", everything he does is part of a vast global consipiracy. His family has intimate ties to Bin Laden and the Saudis; He is trying to enrich his oil business friends; He is trying to avenge the insult to his father by getting rid of Saddam; He plans world domination etc. etc. I could go on an on, but you get the point.

    What is most funny is that these psychologically naiive individuals simultaneously think of Bush as this "criminal mastermind"--a genius of evil; and also as a complete moron who isn't capable of uttering a sentence without making a hash of it; or that his brain is controlled by the equally evil Karl Rove.

    The cognitive dissonance required to have all these contradictory beliefs swirling around in one's brain is astonishing. But besides the primary function it serves to erase from consciousness what is happening in the world today, it is serving a secondary purpose--it makes them feel in control of what might come.

    They can predict with the complete accuracy of the delusional mind that whatever happens--whatever horror is unleased by Al Qaeda or Hamas or Islamic Jihad--was caused by President Bush's actions/inactions/intentions (take your pick).

    They can conduct a brave protest march against the evil Bush...but clearly they don't dare protest real terror or terrorist acts the way that the Jordanians or the Lebanese did, for example. The terrorists are simply poor, misunderstood individuals who have been oppressed by...Bush. Get rid of Bush (or America; or Israel) and voila! Problem solved!

    It would be a foolproof defense against the threat, except...except...if it weren't for ... reality. It would be foolproof, except that the REAL horror; the REAL evil will just not go away. The REAL evil just gets bolder and more aggressive. Like the Nazis in the last century, the REAL evil will not be appeased, and is aware of this psychological weakness inherent in their enemies. In fact, they count on it - because by exploiting it is the only way the terrorists can win.

    As I said at the beginning of this piece, those who are mindful and deliberate in their attacks and are using them for personal political gain; or to advance a totalitarian agenda are simply evil. But there are many people who normally have some degreee of goodwill and sense. Those are the people I am trying to wake up. Think and ask yourselves-- what you are doing? Look around at what is going on in the world.

    It is not Bush who is lopping off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia. It is not Karl Rove who is exhorting mindless minions to explode at wedding parties in Jordan. It is not Bush's policies that have induced immigrant Muslims to riot in France.

    It is the cold-hearted ruthlessness of a fanatical ideology that intends to wipe our civilization off the map. It will not be appeased, and the more you feed it with appeasement, the stronger and bolder it gets. Please note, that since 9/11 there have not been any direct attacks on the U.S. homeland. They have settled for smaller "hit and run" targets of opportunity. Why? Because they rightly fear what we might do if another attack occurred (and besides, they have the MSM and the Left to wage their attacks on the homeland).

    This is not to say that such attacks might not occur when the enemy has the sense that America will never fight back. There are many who give them that assurance daily.

    As a psychiatrist I work with patients who use maladaptive psychological defenses all the time. The goal of treatment is to help them develop insight and self awareness and begin to take responsibility for their own lives and actions; and to face reality--no matter how painful or unpleasant--not to close their eyes and hope and wish it will go away.

    In other words, to act like mature adults and deal with it.

    As long as they focus all their energy on hating Bush and act like the whiny petulant and angry child, who expects daddy to instantaneously make everything better-- or else they won't like it; then they don't ever have to act like mature adults and cope with reality in a mature fashion. It is soooo much easier to blame everything on daddy.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/25/2006 @ 3:05pm

72. Posted by ORWELL2005 04/24/2006 @ 9:45pm

    Orwell, I find your Bush-hating to be a little too rabid for my taste. I would get some mental help, and soon, before it's too late.

    Posted by pontificus at 04/25/2006 @ 3:13pm

73. Pontificus,

    Wow. Such a willingness to distort and misread and, well, hate those who find fault with Bush. You cannot find anyone silly enough to blame Bush for Katrina, but you can look in the mirror and find someone silly enough to believe that his president faces such attacks. You rely on Osama to make Bush look good by comparison. You and those whose quotes you rely on set up folks like Zarqawi as poster boys for the left from the sad logical standpoint that the enemy of my enemy is my friend rather than because of any argument made on behalf of Zarqawi by the left. You simplemindedly assume that it is not possible to want to thwart both terrorists and Bush's hamhanded attempts to control portions of the Middle East. Both are wrong.

    You choose to assign irrationality to every argument made against Bush's decisions rather than acknowledge his mistakes. While we appreciate this subtle acknowledgment that these arguments are fact-based and undisputed, your stale refrain of "you're just_____" (fill in the blank with "childish", "emotional", "hate-filled", "delusional", etc.) makes your every post put you in deeper and deeper rhetorical shit. Your continual reliance on the opinions of others makes you sound like a shill, a boob.

    My day has been lovely and refreshing. I wish you a good day too, sir.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/25/2006 @ 3:57pm