Bush is suggesting that Emotionality is a weakness that cluods judgement. As a sociopath with an inability to feel emotions aside from contemt, anger, and illsions of invulnerability this may make sense to him. Most of us are horrified beyond words at the level of death and suffering needlessly caused by this administration. It's time for not-so-rediculous legal charges to be brought forth.

The Times' editorial correctly notes, "Mr. Bush seems increasingly isolated, clinging to a fantasy version of Iraq that is more and more disconnected from reality."

This isolation of Bush is certainly true, and today it became even more true as Iran, which Bush has been trying to isolate from the whole world, pulled a diplomatic PR coup and has instead very publicly isolated Bush from the British as his last and only supporters in this insane imperial oil-war.

Bush is clearly isolated on the world stage today by an entire world that has chosen diplomacy over war, talking over bombing, and discussion and humna compromise over preemptive and inhuman nuclear attack.

Ahmadinejad and Iran may look a bit radical and unconventional, but Bush's attempt to isolate a major portion of the Middle East (in obvious Tonkin Gulf-like preparation for nuking millions) just backfired on our little nasty chimp --- and he is the one who looks like an aggressive warmonger and is now totally isolated from the global race.

I'll bet it won't be long before our little naked Emperor with no clothes and totally isolated from all countries will be avoiding the use of his smug term 'isolated', as he stands alone and apart from all the world's sane anti-war people.

As I have watched Shrub these past two weeks and especially his reaction to the congress going home without sending him a supplemental budget appropriation to veto I have felt indeed that even he cannot shi9eld himself in denial much anymore.

Scripture tells that when the enormity of what Judas Iscariot did it finally dawned on him he went out and hanged himself. Even Adolph Hitler in the bunker in Berlin with Russian artillery rumbling ever louder in his ears decided to end it all.

Keep a suicide watch on this guy especially unless or until Cheney either resigns or is removed from office. Where are the Hugh Scotts, Barry Goldwaters, and John Rhodes of his own party to try and talk sense into this very disturbed person.

The psychology behind people's views of the invasion and occupaton of Iraq is sometimes simple, sometimes complex.

Different motivations, insecurities, personal history and other factors often come into play.

Understanding why people support or oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq seems to require some exploration of our own psyche. For more food for thought on this, see:

"Iraq War Psychology: Exploring hearts and minds of U.S. officials, press, profiteers"

http://www.populistamerica.com/iraq_war_psychology

I don't think you hve to worry about Bush committing suicide. His response to pressure would be very different. He has a "go for broke" personality and I really fear an attack on Iran as his fallback option. The rumor mills are saying April 7 the bombs will start falling. It's a tragic disaster that he sees the world as the best game of Risk he's ever played.

Steve:
Nice try but no cigar. The UN charter forbids wars of aggression and that doesn't require any "exploration of our own psyche." The US constitution Supremacy Clause says foreign treaties are the supreme law of the land. Again, no psychoanalysis needed there; the UN charter is a part of the supreme law of our land that Bush swore on a Bible to uphold. Thus, the invasion violated the US constitutioon and is an impeachable offense. It's a simple matter of law. My conservative friends dismiss this argument by saying: Who cares about the UN? And that legal stuff? We are at war! And we must win! Conservatives utterly reject the rule of law. So the "different motivations, insecurities, personal history and other factors" just really comes down to whether or not you believe in the rule of law or prefer barbarism. Hmmm...maybe that involves that psychobabble stuff. I owe you a cigar!

Ron, you are exactly right on the law. In fact, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Justice Kennedy, in conjunction with the majority said that the Geneva Convention Common Article Three, as part of a ratified treaty is "binding federal law." It is no great leap therefore to say all treaties ratified are "binding federal law" just as stated in Article 6 (2) states using the language that "treaties made" are the "supreme law of the land."

The Nuremberg Charter was adopted by the UN two and therefore is as binding as the UN Charter--as its extension.

The question indeed (as you said Ron) is the "rule of law" versus the "barbarism" of the so-called, illegal "global war on terror." And THAT is a question of abiding by the Constitution or rejecting it.

Ron, you are exactly right on the law. In fact, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Justice Kennedy, in conjunction with the majority said that the Geneva Convention Common Article Three, as part of a ratified treaty is "binding federal law." It is no great leap therefore to say all treaties ratified are "binding federal law" just as stated in Article 6 (2) states using the language that "treaties made" are the "supreme law of the land."

The Nuremberg Charter was adopted by the UN too and therefore is as binding as the UN Charter--as its extension.

The question indeed (as you said Ron) is the "rule of law" versus the "barbarism" of the so-called, illegal "global war on terror." And THAT is a question of abiding by the Constitution or rejecting it.

Ah, but how to enforce the rule of law and put the war criminals in jail? That's what I'd like to know.

The perfect "feelings test" for the unfeeling president would be to DRAFT his twin daughters and send THEM to Iraq. Would he be so cavalier in his dismissal of emotions then? (Presuming he has the empathy to bond with anyone, although narcissists do connect with their progeny as an offshoot of their much-esteemed selves.)

It's time for Bushe's daughters to join the Army or Marines and do a tour, or two, or three in Iraq.

Whats realling galling and unpalatable is that the New York Times has been a very vocal supporter of this very same commander-in-chief in more ways than one. As a regular former reader of the Times there were way too many instances ion the past 4 years where the Times has offered instinted support to the bush administration policies.

Now that it is convenient to blame the moron-in-chief due to mass appeal, the Times has begun to sound holier-than-thou in its editorial content. this is hypocrisy at its finest.

Maybe the Times should just lie low and not waste advertising space on pontificating and wait till the Next Big War.

There is a way in which Bush's criticism of Dowd and the comment about the NY Times are similar: neither Bush nor gyptian consider it possible that a person or an organization might change its opinion based on a new understanding or new information. Lots of people have changed their positions re the war in Iraq because more information has emerged to let people understand that their original position was based on lies! Unfortunately, becoming better informed is not on the President's priority list--he may not even know what the phrase means--so of course, he dismisses Dowd's changed perspective. I am by no means an apologist for the NY Times and its earlier support of the President but I am so pleased that the paper has changed its position, I can't understand why gyptian and others would trash it for changing. Maybe these folks don't understand the notion of changing ones position based on new information any more than the President does.

"In recent years, Mr. Dowd suffered the death of a premature twin daughter, and was divorced. His son is scheduled to serve in Iraq soon."

"Matthew Dowd Affirms His Son's Decision to Do a Watada " Wouldn't that headline " shock-and-awe " the nation but especially the butt of the phrase himself. Hardly likely but it would be the supreme display of celebrity guts and resolve we haven't seen for a long time.

"neither Bush nor gyptian consider it possible that a person or an organization might change its opinion based on a new understanding or new information"

The problem with this statement is your naivette in believing that an organisation like the New York Times did not or does not have adequate information to make up its own opinion. Alternate Media sources had access to similar information that the Times had and they were able to clinically analyze the situation and uncritically report actual news. The New York Times took a stand to support the war and massaged or suppressed and stifled the news accordingly.
Corporate Media is all powerful and the Times represents this power, after all War is profitable in more ways than one !

As if "Support Our Troops!" is not itself an appeal to emotion.

Dear Military Family,

Your soldier's commander in chief is holding him for ransom. The ransom, over 100 billion dollars demanded from all of us, will be used to enrich the commander's friends and, if there's any money left, to outfit your soldier or the soldier next to him with protective equipment. If we don't give him the money, your soldier's commander is going to abandon him and his comrades in the middle of a civil war in a distant land.

Your soldier knows, if you don't, that his commander has messed things up "big-time," as the commander himself likes to say imperiously behind his vacuous smirk. The cause, whatever it was, is lost. The soldiers' lives and limbs have been sacrificed to partisan political advantage.

The commander utters constant expressions of support, but the soldiers don't mistake his rhetoric for sincerity. He doesn't care about your soldier, but about himself. The soldiers know that, but they follow orders because that's what soldiers do. Deep down, they know that each time a soldier like yours sacrifices everything on the commander's order, the commander's name is glorified.

When somebody you love is held for ransom, your natural inclination is to pay the money over. But this case is different, because we know exactly who is demanding the money, and we can destroy him whenever we wish. What he's done to you and to our country is so egregious that we can justifiably and legally imprison him and put him to death.

And we may do that, but that doesn't help your soldier at this moment, because the commander is still in command. If we don't pay the ransom, he lets the soldiers perish--he's said as much--and if we do pay the ransom, the commander pledges to use the money to keep them in place. Paying the ransom might dispose the commander to give your soldier a little extra protection, but your soldier's not going anywhere as long as the money keeps flowing.

So what's it going to be, family? A marginal improvement in your soldier's safety, is he's lucky enough to survive an extended deployment? Or, despite the grave risk, defiance of the commander by the people, who have the power to command him, and a prospect of getting your soldier and all the soldiers home safely?

And if Bush wants to pass judgements on the families of troops in the mideast, maybe he needs some credibility himself to say this such as being a parent of someone on active duty in the mideast. The fact is, no one within the White House inner circle of decision makers has had relatives themselves on active duty in the mideast.

The fact is, it is all more Bush BS to try to get the peasantry to fight and die as stand in casualties for the super wealthy people and corporations that basically hired him for his job as president. Another way to look at bluntly is a Blood for Oil program, our blood, their oil.

And when those solidiers are seriously wounded and end up at Walter Reed, is Bush still going to be asleep at the wheel? How about the current policy of having wounded soldiers paying back a portion of their bonuses to enlist or re-enlist when in fact their pay is cut back when they are injured and removed active duty during their rehab.

Measure this moral midget up against a real president, Franklin Roosevelt, and World War II. That was the war that when government saw corporations profiteering from war they slapped a windfall profits tax on them to make sure they were sacrificing like all other Americans.

Integral being requires feeling no less than thinking