This entire article presupposes that Bush engages in rational thinking prior to making his decisions. Haven't the last seven years shown us that is not the case? Haven't we been told, condescendingly, that is not the case? Haven't rational actors been sneered at as "the reality-based community?"

This is the Administration where ideology trumps rationality. The real question here is, who will Bush allow to sway him. Currently, it's Condi and the other "diplomacy" folks. But with Cheney and his "oops" accidental war scenario, and his ability to argue, badger, and do Heaven knows what else under the radar to convince The Decider to decide on the military option in Iran, does anyone seriously think Condi an her allies hold out for another 15 months or so? How long until Cheney is able to find, beg, borrow, or steal a General or Admiral somewhere who believes he can launch an effective military strike, and puts him in front of Bush? How long until enough suspect intelligence is stovepiped together and laid at The Boss' feet? How long until Bush is convinced--however illogically--that the only way to finally win in Iraq is by engaging with Iran? ("If we overturn the Shiite regime in Iraq, Mr. President, we won't have to fight them in Iraq, and our troubles there will be greatly reduced!")

No, I am certainly not sanguine that rational behavior will prevail. Not with this bunch, not with their track record.

Well, I think a lot about this whole kerfuffle is silly, honestly. First, I think it was stupid of Colombia to invite Ahmadinejad so close to September 11. Like Sharon walking on the Temple Mount, they had to know that it was inflammatory. Why not invite him in December? Or March? Why in September, for Heaven's sake? It's like putting a chip on your shoulder and saying, "No, I don't want to get in a fight; what makes you think that?"

Second, the whole protest is, of course, overblown. Without question.

But to all you folks who are saying "What about Free Speech?", what about it? First of all, our own free speech rights have been significantly eroded over the last 6 years. Secondly, Ahmadinejad is Iranian, not American. He's busily denying rights to his own citizens. I think demanding that we invite him over and then protesting the protestations on the grounds of "free speech" is, well, pretty marginal.

And finally, to Juan Cole, I'm baffled by your defense of this guy. Whether Ahmadinejad said he wanted to "erase Israel from the face of the Earth," or "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," either statement coming from a man who is undeniably a holocaust denier is pretty frightening, and hardly gives me confidence that he doesn't want "any Israeli civilians to be killed".

And while he may not be the Iran military Commander-in-Chief, one must assume that he has some influence. And Iran's military potential is hardly negligible, it would appear.

(And Juan, plenty of vehement anti-Semites deny that they're anti-Semites. Plenty of racists deny their racism; plenty of gays deny their homosexuality; etc. Taking his word on it is a wee bit naive, don't you think?)

No, I don't think we should attach Iran; I think it would be insanity. And I think this current brouhaha over Ahmadinejad's visit is not only silly, but was avoidable. But Juan Cole's blithe dismissal of the whole thing strikes me as less than reasonable.

There's no doubt in my mind that Walter Shapiro has a better bead on the realities of inside-the-Beltway thinking than me. It's been more than 30 years since I lived there, and my memories are heavily colored by Watergate and the post-Watergate era. Now I'm in Texas, and comfortably far away from the madness. (Although far too close to Crawford.)

So I'll stipulate Shapiro's points. He may be right, or wrong, but I'll stipulate them.

What I have a problem with--what makes me almost physically ill if I allow myself to dwell on it--is that while these cowards make speeches and idiotic votes about newspaper ads and fail to use what power the do have, people are dying, being maimed, and being run off their own land. And by accepting Shapiro's point, we are accepting 15 more months of that. How many tens of thousands more Iraqis will be killed in that time? How many more American soldiers? How many more refugees? How many more billions of dollars of debt (financed by China?)?

Yes, perhaps it's pointless to aim my ire at Congress, when it's clear that they don't have the votes. But people are dying; at whom should I aim my ire? I should just sit here for another 15 months and let those people be killed, wounded, and made homeless? Is that what this country has devolved to?

Maybe it has. I'm guessing that Shapiro is right, honestly. But it saddens me more than I can say that that is the kind of country I live in now. A country that listens to your phone calls; reads your email; invades countries unilaterally; insists it can arrest its own citizens without giving a cause and hold them for however long it likes. And most of all, a country that holds political dithering to be more important than the lives of tens of thousands of human beings.

"Woo hoo. Extra hoo."

And that was a cartoon character. A Disney cartoon character. What does that make those Congressional clowns?