The Mullahs:

- Will never dare to use the bomb, even if they had it. To do so would be suicidal.

- Are years away from anything resembling a credible bomb, in any quantity.

- They lack the technological skills needed to make a workable bomb.

- Don't have the means of hitting Israel with the bomb, their professed favorite target.

- Want the bomb for defensive purposes only.

- Would never hand the bomb over to proxy terrorists.

- Are using this whole bomb thing as a ploy to rally the populace and survive.

- Are visionary patriots planning for a future when the oil dries up.

- Are environmentalists aiming to curb global warming caused by the use of fossil fuel.

- Are striving to join the nuclear club for its prestige.

And on, and on, and on, goes the litany. I believe, based on facts rather than wishful thinking, that every one of the above assertions, as well as all other similar dismissive arguments, are both false and fraught with danger because all the above arguments are confounded by various amounts of denial.

Psychological denial is a common quirk of the human mind. People use denial to distort, even refute reality, when accepting it is too threatening to them. Alcoholics are habitual users of denial, a major tranquilizer of the mind. The alcoholic will adamantly deny having any problem with alcohol and continue to drink, even in the face of irrefutable contrary evidence. Denial is resorted to by both individuals and groups, and can be just as deadly for both.

Following, courtesy of MEMRI, are excerpts from the public address(alternatively click on the video link below):

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1773.htm

"I have for 21 years sat in the British Parliament, the scene of many crimes. I had to sit in the same room for many years as Mr. Tony Blair - the peace envoy, don't you know! You know, in history, the Roman Emperor Caligula appointed his horse a minister in the government of Rome.

Not since Caligula made his horse a minister has there been a more inappropriate appointment as the appointment of Tony Blair as the peace envoy to the Middle East. He's dripping with the blood of the people of Iraq, of the people of Palestine, of the people of Lebanon - and he wants to be the peace envoy!

President Abd Al-Nasser, one of the greatest men of the 20th century, was described in the British Parliament by the British prime minister, in my lifetime, as the "mad dog of Cairo." Of course, Eden's plan failed, just like Blair's plan in Iraq has failed. They too want to deal with somebody they described as a mad dog. But President Abd Al-Nasser and Saddam Hussein will live in history long after these dogs are forgotten.

In Part One I described some of the history of Islamic and Christian blasphemy. At present, individuals in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are facing the threat of execution for offending Islamic mores.

In Pakistan, the laws were implemented in stages, under the leadership of the military dictator General Zia ul-Haq. The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), like the secular code of India, had laws which prevented general insult against religion. These laws, which showed no bias toward any particular faith, were a legacy of Britain's colonial rule. It is hard to imagine now that when Pakistan was founded in 1947, under Mohammed Ali Jinnah (who ruled for 13 months before his untimely death) Pakistan was officially a secular democracy.

In 1947, Jinnah said to the citizens of the newly-founded nation: "You are free. You are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state ... We are starting with this fundamental principle, that we are all citizens and citizens of one state."

The conniving of Islamists and dictators has pushed Pakistan far away from its origins as a place where Muslims could be free to think, and free from persecution.

Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits -- one hit away from the landmark total of 3,000, which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach.

Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner's 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top. The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000.
 
What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black President of the United States.
 
No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.
 
Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a President of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn.
 
There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.

Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a Homecoming Queen.
 
The three leading candidates for their party's nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics -- race, sex and age -- as if that is what the job is about.
 
One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities whenthey were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries.