tell him not to worry. His upcoming impeachment, subsequent indictment, conviction, sentencing and life-time of hard labor at Leavenworth will provide a cautionary tale for generations of spoiled, boozing, mentally-challenged frat boys.

This is what can happen to former Yale cheerleaders:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushcheerleader.htm

I might have been less skeptical about Iranian nuke claims a few years ago had there actually been WMDs found in Iraq and the subsequent occupation there had been better thought out, but skepticism is what you face after telling a fibber and handling things incompetently. I've heard some analysts say Iran is 5-10 years away from possession of nukes: what’s the hurry to start dropping bombs? The sad thing is, the Iranian population is generally young and has Western leanings that could be nurtured with time and diplomacy instead of warfare. But nope, might as well screw up that too.

I have no faith in Bush’s ability to either understand what is going on, tell us the truth about the situation, or successfully deal with the aftermath of any sort of bombing campaign. The Iranians are not going to sit, quietly pacified, afterwards. Expect much more trouble to be stirred up in Iraq (or elsewhere) if this happens with more dead U.S. troops as a result.

Regional war, anyone?

The more I look at GW, the more worried I become.

Let's see. His legacy might be that he is the first President of the United States to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on another nation. He will have unleashed all those rogue states who have nuclear power but were unwilling to face the consequences of using it. He can be responsible for blowing up the entire human race. That's some legacy!

Wow, uh...nuclear war in my lifetime.

Use nukes to prevent nukes?

How much more warped can this administration's thinking get?

The Defense Department apparently thinks they can win friends and influence people in Iran through a campaign of airstrikes, and that these strikes wouldn't be followed by a ground war.

Are these people really that stupid? Sure, we might have no intention of actually invading Iran with our troops (which would be practically impossible if we maintained our troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan and didn't institute a draft), but did it ever occur to them that we have lots of ground troops in two neighboring countries, and that Iran's nutjob president is probably smart enough to weigh his 15,000,000 citizens fit for military service against our hundred thousand troops on the ground, and the fact that the people of said neighboring countries are likely to welcome an invading Islamic force as liberators, and figure if he's being attacked anyway he's got nothing to lose?

Or is that exactly what they're counting on? I'm sure using 100,000 American troops that they don't care about in the first place as bait to bring ol' JC back after a 2000 year absence probably sounds morally justified to quite a few people in DC these days.

Airstrikes will make the people rise up and overthrow their own government? Like the German blitz of London caused Churchill's government to fall, eh?

Maybe the White House crew is thinking of the way the Japanese airstrikes on Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines caused people to rise up and demand that Franklin D. Roosevelt relinquish power. Uh, they did, didn't they? Well, do some research and get back to us on that.

Before World War II the advocates of air power hoped that selective bombing could cut enough vital links in an industrial nation to paralyze it. They overestimated their power and underestimated how fast determined repair crews can work around and patch over bomb damage. The Allied bombing of Germany may have destroyed plenty of factories and transportation, but it did not cause an uprising. We saw the same thing when the Air Force bombed North Vietnam. Japan is the only country I can think of that was conquered by an air campaign, and that was only after horrific bombing of its cities, two nuclear weapons, and the assembly of an invasion force that was to go ashore on November 1st of 1945.

The only effect of airstrikes on Iran will be wildly exaggerated claims of success, a complete cessation of opposition to the regime, and a renewed determination to finish a nuke and use it.

Doesn't anybody in the Bush administration read history books? Anybody?

I recall that there was a man named Mossadec who headed a democratic upheaval in Iran. He made the mistake to nationalize the Iranian oil industry much to the chagrin of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Britain at that time was in no condition to react to this act of treason against its interest, so with the help of the USA financing riots and upheaval and the reinstatement of the Shah killed the fledgling democratic mouvement in Iran. The Reason? Oil and more oil. The Shahs rule gave rise to religios extremism and the eventual overthrow of his regime by Ayatolla Khomeny. The rule of the shah was that of a puppet of the USA. It seems that at times it is better to leave well enough alone. It looks as if the Bushman wants to be known in history by the few survivors of a nuclear holocaust as the party responsible. Lets hope he gets indicted before he can boost his dumb but huge ego and manage to destroy the world as we know it.

"Pastor Warner Dunlap: A person who was functioning totally with an apocalyptic view of history would have less restrain on the [nuclear] button than someone who was not apocalyptic in his view of history.

Meredith Vieira: Why?

Dunlap: That could be perceived as a way of assisting God in bringing what God intended"

Segment of "West 57Th" regarding Pat Robertson, March 1988

Quoted by Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Republic 3/28/1988

Is born-gain W., who at times has implied that he is following God's will, really so different from Pat Robertson or just less loose with his tongue?

Be afraid, very afraid!