Leaky Prosecution Convicts Libby

Scooter Libby, former aide to VP Dick Cheney, found guilty of perjury in the Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame leak case.

Not real surprising -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was hellbent to convict someone of SOMETHING in this, and Libby is the fish.

Before the pundits and shriekers spool up, a couple things to keep in mind:

-- Libby was not the one who leaked Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak, -- former Deputy Defense Secretary Richard Armitage (an opponent of the Iraq war) was. And Fitzgerald knew that from the start.

-- Libby was not charged with leaking Plame's identity.

-- Plame's identify was essentially the most talked about thing in Washington, according to the testimony at the trial, and Libby never denied that he participated in those discussions.

-- The substance of the charges was that Libby's notes indicated he had conversations about Plame's identity earlier that he said he did while testifying. So he was essentially accused of forgetting when he had specific conversations about something everyone was talking about.

-- Whether Libby is a liar or not is not clear. But it's clear that Joe Wilson is-- he wrote in the New York Times that he found no evidence Iraq sought uranium in Niger, but he told the CIA the exact opposite (as documented in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on prewar intelligence).

So while Libby's guilt is shaky at best, the bona fide leaker Armitage and the confirmed liar Wilson remain uncharged.

Libby's conviction will be overturned on appeal.

Preventing a new killing fields

William Shawcross was a vocal critic of U.S. policy in Southeast Asia and somewhat sympathetic to the Communist "freedom fighters" in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.

Until he saw what they did when they took over in 1975.

The following piece by him appeared in the UK Times on Saturday:

Remember: for Cambodia, read Iraq

William Shawcross

The Killing Fields illustrates brilliantly part of the long disaster that has been Cambodia over recent decades. It is a compelling film that follows the story of a young Cambodian, Dith Pran, who worked for the New York Times reporter Sidney Schanberg in Cambodia during the brutal five-year war that resulted in the communist Khmer Rouge victory in April 1975.

At that moment all the foreigners and their Cambodian friends took refuge in the French Embassy, hoping for safe passage out of the country. They had not reckoned with the horrific total revolution that the communists planned to impose. They demanded that all the Cambodians, including Pran, surrender, while the foreigners were trucked out of the country. In tears, the foreigners, including Schanberg, let their friends go. Many were murdered at once as “Western agents”.

For the next three and a half years Pran had to conceal his past as he worked in the fields. The communists under Pol Pot shut Cambodia off and imposed one of the most vicious totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Up to two million of the seven million people died, either murdered by the Khmer Rouge or from starvation and disease as a result of the draconian agrarian policies they imposed. Pran survived.

At the end of 1975 I went to the Thai-Cambodian border to talk to refugees. Their horrific stories of people with glasses being killed as “intellectuals” and of “bourgeois” babies being beaten to death against trees were being dismissed as CIA propaganda by the antiAmerican Western Left, but it seemed obvious to me that they were true. I wanted to discover how the Khmer Rouge had grown and come to power; I wrote a book called Sideshow, which was very critical of the way in which the United States had brought war to Cambodia while trying to extricate itself from Vietnam.

But horror had engulfed all of Indo-China as a result of the US defeat in 1975. In Vietnam and Laos there was no vast mass murder but the communists created cruel gulags and, from Vietnam in particular, millions of people fled, mostly by boat and mostly to the US. Given the catastrophe of the communist victories, I have always thought that those like myself who were opposed to the American efforts in Indochina should be very humble. I also think it wrong to dismiss the US efforts there as sheer disaster. Lee Kuan Yew, the former longtime Prime Minister of Singapore, has a subtler view. He argues that, although America lost in IndoChina in 1975, the fact that it was there so long meant that other SouthEast Asian countries had time to build up their economies to relieve the poverty of their peasants and thus resist communist encroachment — which they probably could not have done had IndoChina gone communist in the 1960s.

That long view seems to me to be the one that has to be applied to Iraq. I still believe the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was the correct thing to do — and it was something only the United States could have done. For all the horrors that extremist Sunnis and Shias are inflicting on each other today, the US rid the world of the Pol Pot of the Middle East. So long as the vile Saddam family regime remained in power there was no hope of progress in the region. There is still hope — if we do not abandon the Iraqi people.

In Indo-China the majority of Western journalists (including myself) believed that the war could not or should not be won. Similarly today, for too many pundits hatred (and it really is that) of Bush and Blair dominates perceptions. Armchair editorialists love to dismiss the US effort in terms of Abu Ghraib or Haditha. They were not typical moments. Evidence of the courage and commitment of ordinary US soldiers is inadequately covered by many papers, as is the courage of millions of ordinary Iraqis.

There are encouraging signs — the Iraqi military is becoming ever more competent; Sunni tribal leaders seem increasingly angry with al-Qaeda brutalities; parliament is discussing contentious legislation on dividing oil and gas revenues fairly between different parts of the country; the dinar is still strong, indicating confidence; most Iraqis still seem to desire a united country.

Of course huge mistakes have been made. We should lament and criticise them but not dismiss the underlying effort. President Bush’s new strategy (and probably his last throw) is to “surge” thousands of US troops into Baghdad. Rather than abusing him we should all be hoping that it is not too little too late.

The consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be even worse than in IndoChina. As the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Musab al-Zarqawi, said before he was killed by a US air strike: “The shedding of Muslim blood is allowed in order to disrupt the greater evil of disrupting jihad.”

If Iraq collapses, such nihilist killing will spread far wider. As in Cambodia, bloody mass murder is the only alternative to what the US-led coalition is trying to achieve. Thanks to the sacrifice of young American and British soldiers, and to the courage of millions of ordinary Iraqis, the country can still have a better future — if we remain committed. Remember 1975.

William Shawcross is the author of Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia, and Allies: The US, Britain, Europe and the War in Iraq

The Gore Pool

Great editorial in the Wall Street Journal today about the woo-ha regarding Al Gore's profligate energy use compared to his moralizing on global warming.

Gore's palatial Tennessee homes uses more electricity in a month as the average American household uses in a year. That he balances this by purchasing "carbon offsets" -- investments that reduce carbon dioxide output, effectively cancelling out his overweight emissions -- misses the point, says the WSJ.

While expects everyone else to suffer the inconveniences that go along with conservation, he has the luxury of buying his way out.

"We don't begrudge Mr. Gore his Tennessee spread or his pool, but his energetic energy use does underscore the complicated nature of modern economic life and the real costs of "doing something" about global warming, "says the WSJ. "The pleasures of affluence take energy, whether they be relaxing in a hot tub after a long day of predicting the end of the Greenland ice sheet, or flying in a private jet to talk political strategy with Leo DiCaprio. You never know where you're going to leave your next carbon footprint.

"Mr. Gore is rich and fortunate enough to be able to afford the "carbon offset" for his energy indulgences. The middle-class parents who need a gas-guzzling SUV to haul the kids to soccer practice might not be so lucky. They might even settle for an unheated pool."

Exactly.

Cruisin' in Iran

The U.S. displaying weapons it says Iran is supplying to Iraqi insurgents, used to kill coalition soldiers, and the Iranians (of course) denying it.

"We categorically deny that we supplied these weapons to the Iraqi terrorists -- the fact that they are obviously manufactured in Iran and are used by our military is merely a coincidence," said an Iranian embassy spokesman, adding, "Death to America. Uh, oh and Israel too. Yeah death to Israel. And the Holocaust never happened."

The munitions, primarily armor-piercing rounds (marked "Made In Iran -- Death to Infidels") have killed 170 coalition soldiers.

Congress all in a dither over it, as the House of Representatives votes on its Manifesto of Cowardice, condemning the president's plan to increase troops in Iraq.

"If at times like this we can't turn tail and run, taking refuge in the safety provided by hiding under our beds, when can we?" said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"Hold me, I'm scared," added Congressman John Murtha.

Congress is all nervous because they're afraid the unveiling of the Iranian munitions signals a move by the administration toward war with Iran.

But we don't need to invade Iran and get ourselves all messy in another land war to stop the Iranians and Syrians from supporting the bad guys in Iraq. There's a perfectly good alternative.

Here's what we should do: Park a couple of Aegis guided missile cruisers in the Persian Gulf, along with an aircraft carrier to provide fighter cover.

Then, we tell the Iranians and Syrians that for every weapon or fighter we find in Iraq that we can trace directly back to them, they lose a factory, a power plant, a transportation hub, a bridge or a government building.

Heck, we'll even give them 30-minutes warning on which target we're going to hit before we launch the cruise missiles, so they have time to get people out.

I call it "reverse insurgency via cruise missile proxy."

Effective, humane, and I'll bet it will back them down.

But we won't do it.

Hybrid Conservative

I took delivery of my 2007 Toyota Prius Hybrid this week -- the results of about two years of research/procrastinating.

"But Jblog," you say with astonishment, "Only quiche-eaters, treehuggers, dirt-worshippers and earthmuffins drive hybrids."

Not so, however -- it's actually the PERFECT car for a registered Republican like me. Lemme tell you why:

-- Tax breaks -- The purchase qualifies for a $1,500 federal income tax credit -- that's a credit, not a deduction, so it comes right off the bottom line. (But hurry -- the credit drops to $750 after March 31 and expires later this year. That's why I went for mine now.) Plus in Connecticut you don't have to pay sales tax on new hybrids -- that shaves another $1,500 off the top of the price.

-- Fiscal fitness -- In addition to $3Gs in tax breaks, I qualified for 24 months of 0 percent financing. I estimate that will save me another $2,000 or so over the life of the loan. And I estimate I will save another $1,000 in fuel costs each year. That's $7,000 in savings over the first two years, which well offsets the premium price for purchasing this new technology.

-- Good for America -- I'm currently averaging about 45 mpg, which is about twice what my old car got. America finds itself in direct competition with emerging markets in China and India for the global oil supply, which will push oil prices up over the next decade. Cutting my fuel consumption by half helps take the pressure off. It also means less money in the pockets of terrorists who profit from the oil trade, like Osama Bin Ladin and Hugo Chavez.

-- Rational environmentalism -- Contrary to popular misconception, most conservatives DO care about the environment. We'd just prefer not crater the economy while saving the earth. Adoption of new technologies like hybrid cars is a sane approach to this issue.

-- Intelligent design -- This is an exceptionally well-designed vehicle, inside and out. -- from the gasoline engine/electric motor power plant to the head-up display and touchscreen controls. Purchasing cars like this encourages all the automakers to strive for this kind of innovation and user-centered design.

-- Moral high ground -- "No blood for oil" my ass. How exactly did those hippies get to the antiwar rally, anyway? Next time I'm at the Dairy and Energy Mart giving my hybrid a sip and I see one of those freaks filling up his gas guzzler (with his antiwar, anti-oil bumpersticker proudly displayed), I believe I pretty much have the absolute moral authority to grab the tire iron out the hatch, walk over and bust his windshield.

Catch-up Time: Hillary, Gavin and the rest

Been a little bored with blogging lately -- so haven't been writing.

But thought I would catch up on a couple things.

Fred Barnes writing about WSJ opinion section yesterday about how Hillary Clinton's caught in a political crack -- sitting to the right of her primary opponents, she's feeling pressure to move to the left to gain her party nomination. But if she does, she runs the risk of offending swing voters in the general election.

I wrote the same thing last June -- nice to see the WSJ taking a cue from me (although to be fair, this is pretty obvious to just about everyone -- surprised it took this long for someone else to write about it).

And then we have San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, admitting to an affair with the wife of one of his closest advisors.

And already the same lefties who snickered and sneered at Evangelical leader Ted Haggard's indiscretions last fall are falling all over themselves to excuse Newsom.

"Why is this a public matter?" huffs Arianna Huffington, noting that the parties involved weren't doing it on the public's dime.

Could she be that dense? It mattered with Republican Bob Packwood did it. It mattered when Bill Clinton did it. It certainly matter when Jim McGreevy did it. It matters because character matters.

It matters because if the people closest to our elected officials can't trust them, how can we?

And it becomes the public's business the instant an elected official takes the oath of office and swears to serve in an ethical and honest manner.

At least Newsom didn't go all McGreevy and make excuses for his behavior -- he admitted his guilt and apologized. Be curious to see how he follows that up to make amends -- will he resign?

Doubtful.

The most likely outcome? BOOK DEALS.

One for the scumbag major. One for the wife-victim. One for the cuckolded confidant. And one for the floozy.

I'm betting Newsom get a six-figure advance.

In the meantime, Haggard's accuser was welcomed at the former pastor's church this week, with members shaking his hand and thanking him for coming forward with the truth. I wonder what Arianna thinks of that? (Not really -- I don't care what she thinks).

Correction: I didn't follow the time-thread on the Newsom affair properly. Apparently Newsom and his wife divorced before the beginning of the affair. This may not affect her book deal though.

Risky Business for All

President Bush unveiled his plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq last night, taking a risk he can turn it around.

His platform was clear -- withdrawing from Iraq and allowing it to continue to devolve into disaster would be an unacceptable failure, one that would surely embolden the terrorists.

And his plan is straightforward -- quell the insurgency and hold the Iraqi government accountable for its progress.

Politically speaking, this is his last chance to get it right -- if allied forces don't crush Al Qaida and sectarian militias swiftly and definitively, the GOP will be the losers in the next presidential election.

The Democrats have problems of their own however. They've squawked about the additional troops and made noises about blocking funding, but they don't dare. That would make them look like don't support our troops.

They also failed to provide an alternative plan -- apparently they haven't figured how to run away and abandon our allies without looking like cowards.

"Don't flap your arms so much. And don't run with your knees up so high. And for the love of gravy, stop shrieking!"

So if the president succeeds, the Dems are the losers in 2008.

If they block the extra troops and he fails, everyone gets the stink on them, and 2008 is a foodfight.

The America public may be tired with the war and impatient with the situation. But the one thing they won't tolerate is failure.

Iraq by the numbers

Reuters noting that the number of American troops killed in Iraq has now passed 3,000.

It won't be long before the anti-war crowd will be pimping this figure as further proof that Iraq is a catastrophe, spiraling out of control and destined to failure.

But it's not necessarily so. The Iraq conflict actually has the lowest casualty rate of any war in U.S. history. And while Reuters says December was the deadliest month in the war, American combat deaths have declined every year since the invasion.

Consider also:
-- During WWII, we lost 3,000 soldiers on D-Day alone;

-- Three times that many were killed at Gettysburg during the Civil War;

-- Ten times as many American troops had been killed by this time in the Vietnam War (the original "quagmire" -- and a Liberal adventure, incidentally) .

I hate to boil it down to a simple comparison of numbers -- it seems so callous and cold. It is a tragedy every time an American soldier is killed. But if the anti-war guys are going to use the numbers for their purposes, someone has to put them in perspective.

There is no question the situation in Iraq is very bad, could get worse, and may ultimately lead to defeat. But the casualty rate is not one of those proof points.

Saddam's End

Saddam met his end today, at the end of a length of official Iraqi government rope -- it was a far more merciful fate than he doled out to his victims during his dictatorship.

Estimates for the number of people he murdered range from one million to more than seven million. That doesn't count the one million soldiers killed during his war with Iran.

At the low end, those numbers put him in the same category as Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin.

The atrocities committed by him and his sons are astonishing, including:

-- The rape of girls as young as 12 as a form of recreation;

-- The torture of children, even infants, to extract information and confessions from their parents;

-- The murder of children as part of military training exercises;

-- Extermination of whole villages of Kurds via gas attacks;

-- Torture methods including rape, beatings, gouging out eyes, lopping off hands and feet, electical shocks to the genitals, burning, and cutting;

-- Execution methods ranging from firearms and hangings to stuffing people into shredding machines or tossing them into vats of acid.

For a fuller accounting of his barbarities, you can go review this British report.

Brown, Ford Pass

Two icons from different spheres passed over the holidays.

James Brown died early Christmas morning and President Gerald Ford passed away this morning.


Brown -- "The Hardest-Working Man in Show Business," "The Godfather of Soul" -- electrified R&B and was widely imitated by soul singers and rockers alike. Tussles with the law over guns and drugs led to time in the jail, but couldn't diminish his legacy.

Ford was a disintinguished statesman known for his integrity who had the dubious distinction of being the first Amerian politician victimized by late-night-comedian character assassination -- notably impressions of him as a bumbling stiff by Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live. Chase later admitted that he portrayed Ford as a dull-witted fumbler to sway the '75 presidential election.

Frightening to realize that many people still get their information from the likes of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Letterman and the other late-night chuckleheads.

Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau once observed that anyone who gets his political information from the comics deserves he gets at the polls. He was talking about the funny papers, but the principle applies to the midnight yucksters and those who listen to them as well.

Experts say: Send More Troops

Experts told incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates that more troops are in needed in Iraq.

"Sir, I think we need to just keep doing what we're doing," Specialist Jason Glenn told Gates, who along with other soliders serving in Iraq had breakfast with the new DS."I really think we need more troops here. With more presence on the ground, more troops might hold them (the insurgents) off long enough to where we can get the Iraqi army trained up."

These are, after all, the REAL experts -- not the armchair kind back in DC writing up reports. These are the people doing the fighting, the bleeding and the dying. They're also the ones most intimately familiar with the strength, tactics and psychology of the enemy.

So maybe someone ought to listen to them.

Ahmadinejadidn't

Iranian Whackjob President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- as in "I-hate-Israel-death-to-America-the-Holocaust-didn't-happen-I-want-nukes" Ahmadinejad -- got a smack in the face this week when his party lost big time in the influential Tehran local elections.

"Relative moderate" and former President Hashemi Rafsanjani -- who lost to Mad Ahmad in the last national election -- polled the most votes, reports AP.

A faint ray of hope that there might be someone rational to deal with in Iran.

Money Talks in Iraq

Newsweek reporting that Iraq's economy is booming.

"Civil war or not, Iraq has an economy, and—mother of all surprises—it's doing remarkably well. Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to a report by Global Insight in London. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank has it lower: at 4 percent this year. But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all."

Interesting.

Interesting because it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Interesting because no one else is reporting this. Interesting because it contradicts the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group.

No, it doesn't mean everything is just swell in Iraq. But it is encouraging, because when people are making money they tend to be too busy to kill one another.

All the more reason we should encourage this trend as much as we can.

I think Senator John McCain has it right too -- send additional troops into the Iraq to cripple the insurgents and sectarian militias.

Then follow up with LOTS of economic building.

Obama? Haysbert!

All this talk about Barack Obama as a presidential candidate in '08? Bah!

My guess is the first black man to be president will be a Republican -- I dunno who it will be, but I think it would be someone like Dennis Haysbert.

Whether he's handling a major crisis as President David Palmer on "24" or firing at terrorists with his trusty M4 as Jonas Blane on "The Unit," Haysbert is everything you'd want in a president -- smart, cool-headed, tough, aggressive, principled, decisive, results oriented.

Heck, you'd even buy insurance from this guy.

Note: I don't know what Haysbert's actual political views are -- I'm referring to the qualities of the characters he plays.

In Denial on Iran

Iran hosting a conference this week questioning whether the Holocaust occurred, hosting all the leading antisemitic whackjobs and screwballs on the planet.

The goal, of course, is to discredit the legitimacy of the state of Israel -- if the Holocaust didn't occur then the Jews don't need a homeland to protect them, the logic goes.

The event is billed as an open discussion on the subject, but only those who don't believe the Holocaust occurred are speaking.

That's nice.

Hey everybody, these are the people who are gonna help us stop the war in Iraq, with all their levelheadedness, tolerance, and sensitivity and stuff!

Uh huh.

ISG Fantasy and Reality

Oddly, the Washington Post editorial page agreeing closely with my views on the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group.

The military objectives are realistic, in fact quite close to those that already exist within the Bush administration and the Iraqi government, and should be vigorously pursued.

The diplomatic ones, however, are pure fantasy -- the idea that an Israel-Palestine peace plan is central to success and that Iran and Syria, the biggest troublemakers in the region, could be part of the solution is preposterous.

Read it all.

I printed off my copy of the report today, btw -- only runs about 85 pages. I plan to read it this week. You can find it here.

Reyes Don't Know Shiite

Okay, not good.

Incoming House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes couldn't sort out the main players in the Iraq conflict in an interview with Congressional Quarterly.

When asked whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite, he guessed Shiite.

Wrong.

Al Qaeda is rabidly Sunni -- so much so, opined CQ interviewer Jeff Stein, that"if a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball."

In fact, it is the stated objective of Al Qaeda in Iraq to spur civil war by conducting and supporting attacks by Sunnis against Shiites.

Pretty basic. Pretty fundamental. For the incoming Intel Committee chair not to know it is pretty bad.

Even I knew the right answer on this one, and I'm just your average, college-educated, mid-level, corporate professional who reads the newspapers -- not a major political leader about to be appointed chair of perhaps the most important House committee.

Remember, Reyes is a member of the party that keeps telling us how much smarter they are than the rest of us and how they're going to fix everything.

I don't feel very well.

One more note -- when President (then candidate) Bush failed a similar pop quiz by a reporter a few years ago, I recall it was the subject of much media attention and chuckling. Yet I see little pickup of this story about Reyes. Interesting.

Spider Webb

Week four of the Democratic Revolution. Any progress so far?

Nope.

But we do have a freshman senator acting rudely to the president at a White House reception for incoming Congressmen.

Virginia's James Webb first ducked the reception line in an attempt to avoid President Bush.

The President later sought Webb out personally to inquire about his son, a Marine serving in Iraq. Webb, a frequent critic of the war, rebuffed him, saying "I'd like to get them out of Iraq."

The president persisted, somewhat testily, saying "That's not what I asked you -- how's you boy"?

Webb replied, "That's between me and my boy."

Is this the spirit of bipartisanship that the Democratic leadership pledged after the election? I don't think so.

Webb doesn't like the president and his policies? Fine. Doesn't want to speak with him? Okay.

But who goes to a White House reception hosted by the president and then deliberatly tries to avoid the host?

Someone trying to provoke just that kind of encounter.

Bad manners at least. Scheming and hypocrisy at worst.

During the election, I actually thought Webb might be an improvement over incumbent Republican George Allen. I'm beginning to rethink that.

But still no progress on the ambitious Democractic agenda for America.

Tick tock.

Pelosi: In Harman's Way

Week three of the Democractic Revolution in Congress, and still no signs of any progress.

But we do find Speaker Nancy Pelosi again playing politics, this time backing disgraced former federal judge Alcee Hastings for chairman of the House Intelligence Committee over frenemy Jane Harman.

Harman is a member of the committee and was thought to be the shoo-in for the leadership post, but according to the Washington Post she and Pelosi have an only slightly less skanky Paris Hilton-Nicole Richie thing going on.

Before serving in the House, Hastings was impeached by Congress on corruption charges while serving on the federal bench -- an impeachment Pelosi voted for.

Pelosi apparently didn't learn her lesson after getting trounced on the Murtha/Hoyer majority leader thing. Be shame if she squandered all of her political capital this way, before the new Congress takes office in January.

And what does backing Hastings say about Pelosi's pledge to clean up Congress -- the #1 issue on the minds of voters in the November elections?

Still no progress on saving Iraq, keeping us safe from terrorists, lowering the cost of college, making us energy efficient and environmentally friendly, boosting the economy, reducing the deficit, and all the other things the Democrats said they were gonna do.

Oh well, I'm sure after all the politics they'll get around to it...

Tick tock.

Dem Revolution -- Week 2

Two weeks since the Democrats took over Congress, and let's see how much progress they've made on their ambitious agenda.

Okay, well, first the majority of the House members flipped new Speaker Nancy Pelosi the bird after she backed resident whack-job Jack Murtha for the majority leader over Steny Hoyer. In secret balloting, Hoyer crushed Murtha for the job.

So much for unity within the party. Although the crazy-old optimist in me says maybe this is good -- maybe it means the Dems won't march in lockstep like automatons behind every nutty idea Pelosi fronts.

But it seems like an awfully big waste of her political capital so early on -- it was a real "in your face" moment for her. She has a reputation for being a dragon lady, and in this case it looks like her own allies slew the dragon.

Next we had Congressman Charles "Big Pimpin'" Rangel once again calling for the resinsitution of the military draft -- a measure expected to get absolutely no support from anyone in Congress or the current administration. Rangel has pulled this stunt before -- apparently trying to make some political point that's lost on everyone.

Unless the point he's trying to make is that he merely likes to make grandstanding plays like this in a pathetic attempt to draw attention to himself.

So, for week two we had domestic squabbling and a hail-mary pass that bounced harmlessly on the 20-yard line.

Or in other words: business as usual for Congress.

No progress on lowering the deficit, keeping us safe from terrorists, finding a solution for Iraq, raising the minium wage, making college more affordable, fixing the healthcare system, making us energy self-sufficient or protecting the environment.

Tick tock, people.

Tick Tock for Dems

Well, it's been a week since the Democrats regained control of Congress.

So....have they fixed everything yet?

Sorry, was just pretending I was a typical American voter.

Still the Dems have laid out a rather ambitious -- and in many cases, noble -- agenda:

-- End corruption in Congress (I'd suggest they start with Harry Reid, William Jefferson and Alcee Hastings)

-- Keep America safe in the war on terror

-- Create a cleaner, greener, energy policy less dependent on foreign oil

-- Raise the minium wage and lower college tuition

-- Reform healthcare

-- Keep Social Security solvent and protect retirement income.

Pretty lofty goals. Good luck with them. I wish them well.

But the Dems won the election by capitalizing on the short attention span and impatience of the American voters. And that could just as easily come back to bite them if they don't show progress -- fast.

I figure they have maybe six months to show some progress on some of them. Otherwise, it will be back to "throw the bums out," with the Democrats in the starring role.

Well, that didn't take long

Less than a week after capturing both the House and the Senate, Democratic congressman are sounding the retreat in Iraq, calling for troop drawdowns within months.

''There is no military solution in Iraq,'' said Senator Carl Levin said. ''There is only a political solution.''

"Hold me -- I'm frightened," he added. (no he didn't)

So all this talk about a "new direction" in Iraq was what we suspected all along -- a call for cowardice and abandoning our allies.

Imagine my shock.

Nice Nancy

Presumuptive House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi promised more niceness in government yesterday, pledging that a Democratic-controlled Congress would work across party lines, cooperate with the President, and generally behave like ladies and gentlemen.

Her comments followed conciliatory remarks from President Bush yesterday who also pledged to work more closely with the Democrats for the good of the country. He offer up the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a mark of sincerity.

Uh huh

The White House has often been abrupt and dismissive, but Bush has a record of being to act in a bipartisan fashion while Texas governor, and pledged to act that when when first elected in 2000.

But the Democrats led by Pelosi have set a tone of shrillness in Washington, often referring to the President and his counselors as incompetent.

It could be that circumtstances now force to two parties for work together.

When the Democrats were in the minority, the Republicans could pretty much do whatever they wanted, and that led to complacency. The Democrats, being sidelined could snipe at will, but carried none of the responsibility for what was going on.

Now they both have skin in the game.

Election Aftermath

Voting results showing that it would appear the Democrats have narrowly won the House of Representatives and may still capture the Senate.

In essence, the Democrats are now the dog that chases cars and finally caught one. Now that they caught it, they need to figure out what to do with it.

But while they're still doing their chicken dance, they want to remember this: it was very close, and it remains very close.

Here's what I mean:

-- Democrats and the media have characterized the election as a referendum on Iraq. But exit polls show that three-quarters of the voters were most concerned about corruption, reports the AP -- an issue the Democrats are hardly exempt from -- see: Reid, Hevesi, Menendez, Jefferson...

-- Voters rejected antiwar extremists like Ned Lamont, who repeatedly attacked the U.S. policy on Iraq but failed to explain how retreat and cowardice will keep us safe. Lamont was essentially crushed by incumbent Joe Lieberman, who won handily by an 8-percent margin.

-- Lieberman says he is unbeholden to the Republicans as he returns to the Senate. But in reality, it is the Democrats who abandoned him that he owes nothing to -- giving him freedom of action to operate as an independent.

-- Even if the Democrats win both houses, what can they do about the President's Iraq policy? Speaking on CBS last evening, Clinton White House Spokesman Mike McCurry summed it up this way: very little. Foreign policy is the domain of the administrative branch of our federal government. By attacking the current policy and promising change, they've essentially written a check they can't cover -- look for some very angry voters in two years.

-- The Democrats will likely put forward legislation on issues like the environment, healthcare and minimum wage. But with only a slight majority in the House and near parity in the Senate (no matter which way the final races turn out), the Democrats will need to work with Republicans to make them stick -- they don't have the voting weight to override a presidential veto.

Saddam: Justice Served

Saddam Hussein sentenced to death by hanging by an Iraqi court yesterday for the murder of 148 Shiite men and boys.

It is a far more merciful fate than met his victims, and it covers only a tiny fraction of his crimes.

The list of his bestial crimes is long, but I'll try to summarize:

-- Repeated attacks against his neighbors, including a war with Iran that killed one million soldiers.

-- The murder of between one million and eight million of his own countryman -- victims' group continue poring through official Iraqi documents to come up with a final tally. But even the low end of these numbers puts him in the same league as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Tactics ranged from rounding up and shooting the victims to gassing whole villages of civilians (see photo above);

-- Torture on an incredible level -- eyes gouged out, electric shocks to the genitals, the rape of women and children, infants tortured in front of their parents, hands lopped off, people tossed into shredding machines and vats of acid, and on and on;

-- Repeated violations of the international peace accords ending the first Gulf War, including continuing human rights abuses, failure to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors, and ardent support of global terror;

-- Continuing concealment of WMD programs despite international requirements to fully disarm and prove that he had done so;

-- The wholly corrupt oil-for-food program, which allowed Saddam to continue to collect money to support his murderous regime while lining the pockets of U.N. officials and their associates, including the son of Secretary General Kofi Annan.

One day before the elections, it's important to keep all this in mind as many anti-war candidates question why we're in Iraq.

We know why.

Left Looking Haggard

Now that we have a little more to go on in the in the Ted Haggard episode, we can intelligently analyze the facts at hand.

Lessee...bought drugs but didn't use them...had an illicit, but non-sexual, relationship with a gay male prostitute...

There's only one conclusion we can draw: Haggard is almost -- but not quite -- qualified to run for higher office as a Democrat.

*sigh* If ONLY he had taken the drugs and had sex with the guy. Maybe put his lover on the payroll in a job he was unqualified for for good measure.

Can't you just see it unfurling like a tableau? The public accusation and the fervent denial: "I did NOT have sex with that man, Mr. Jones."

Then, the evidence would appear -- surreptitious recordings, a garment of some type stained with an incriminating bodily fluid.

There would be weeks or months of media drama, hearings and various events -- accusers and defenders would battle.

And, when the evidence was irrefutable, finally the tearful confession: "I am a gay American Evangelical."

Liberals -- being the caring, accepting, tolerant bunch that they are -- would rush to embrace him. "It's nobody's business but his own," they'd say, as they praised his bravery.

A lucrative book deal would follow. Jake Gyllenhaal would play him in the motion picture adapation -- "Brokeback Pulpit," possibly.

He'd make the rounds of the chat shows -- sitting on Oprah's couch, dancing with Ellen, having tea with the ladies on The View. He'd trade laughs with Letterman, Leno and O'Brien.

He'd be the toast of Hollywood.

And before you know it, it would be 2008 and "Haggard for President" on the Democratic ticket.

If only. If only.

You see kids, this is what happens when you don't plan ahead and follow through.

Dem Vandals

Vandals defaced the Pawling offices of Republican NY Assembly candidate Greg Ball, spray painting "fascist," "fascist pig" and swastikas on the walls, reports the Journal News.

And the supergeniuses behind this spelled "fascist" wrong -- they left out the first "s."

Haven't we hit our quota for political irony and hypocrisy yet this week?

First, John Kerry appears to insult the intelligence of our troops in Iraq. Then he says he really meant to insult the intelligence of the president, who actually got slightly better grades than he did at Yale.

Now we have local "political activists" labeling a candidate they oppose a fascist, and themselves employing fascist tactics to do it. Almost like a local little version of Kristallnacht.

Ball's opponent Ken Harper immediately denounced the attack, saying "This is deplorable and it doesn't represent my values or my campaign. I personally pledge to hunt down and apprehend the perpetrators, and hand them over to the authorities."

No he didn't, although he should have.

He actually said he hopes the miscreants are caught and punished, but "People get emotional about this stuff," as if this was all just boys-will-be-boys behavior.

He then launched an attack on his opponent.

Democrats -- could they get it less?

You know, I thought these people were all supposed to be so much smarter, sensitive and tolerant than the rest of us. Apparently not.

The Smell of Arrogrance

In one event, we have a summary of everything people don't like about John Kerry and the Democrats: condescension and arrogance.

It all started Monday, as Kerry was on the hustings for Democractic candidates ahead of next week's mid-term elections. He uttered the following to a group of college students:

"Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.''

The apparent implication was clear -- America's military men and women are stupid. Having viewed the original video of his comments, I can think of no other interpretation of what...he...said.

The point was lost on no one, and the White House and others immediately demanded an apology.

Landing in Seattle Tuesday, Kerry explained that this comment was a "botched joke" aimed at the president-- the punchline was supposed to be "Just ask President Bush."

He declined to apologize to anyone, then launched into a diatribe:

"I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won't take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes. I'm sick and tired of a whole bunch of Republican attacks, the most of which come from people who never wore the uniform and never had the courage to stand up and go to war themselves."

He goes on to insult the intelligence of the president and his White House advisors, call White House spokesman Tony Snow a stuffed suit and Rush Limbaugh "doughy" -- why he dragged him in we'll never know -- and said anyone who thinks he was talking about the troops is crazy.

In other words, it's not him -- it's everyone else.

A full-blown meltdown. Read it here in the NY Times.

A couple points though:

-- If he didn't mean to insult the troops, why not simply apologize for the misunderstanding? He's responsible for it -- he's the one who muffed the line. We don't know what he meant -- we only know what he said.

-- When the president "botches" a line, people call him an idiot. Does this mean Kerry's an idiot too?

-- If Kerry really was referring to the president's academic record, what does that say about Kerry? As the Boston Globe reported last year, his GPA at Yale was slighltly lower than Bush's. So, who's the imbecile here?

Today, Kerry and the Democrats are reeling -- he finally issued a faint apology and has cancelled further campaign stops. Other Democrats have joined the call for a fuller apology.

But the damage is done and it may have an impact on next Tuesday's elections.

"I'm not offended, but this is why John Kerry lost the election," said Jana Cook, a 43-year-old advertising executive and mother of two in Olathe, Kansas, quoted in a Reuters story. "He was perceived as an elitist and those are the kind of statements an elitist makes."

Exactly.

Most Weapons NOT Missing in Iraq

Okay, not a really great headline -- certainly not as good as the NPR is running on its story about weapons supplied to the Iraqi government by the U.S.: Thousands of U.S.-Bought Weapons Lost in Iraq.

The story posted on their Web site details that about the "missing" weapons, noting that only about 10,000 of the weapons -- primarily pistols, rifles and machineguns -- were registered by serial number. The U.S. has supplied about $133-million-worth of weapons to the Iraqis.

But what the story doesn't say, but Special Inspector Stuart Bowen (who conducted the audit) DID say in an on-air interview with NPR, was that only about 4 percent of the weapons are actually unaccounted for.

Don't look for that interview on their Web site, btw -- it's not there. I happened to hear it on the ride home from work last night and immediately noted the disparity between what Bowen said and what NPR was reporting.

Hmm, interesting.

You'd think there was an election coming up or something.

NYT: Fewer Dead Trees

Circulation at daily U.S. newspapers continues to slide, says the NY Times, down another 2.8 percent over the last six months and the steepest decline in 15 years.

The LA Times lost a whopping 8 percent daily and 6 percent on Sundays, the Boston Globe was down 6.7 percent daily and a holey socks! 10 percent Sundays. And the NY Times itself dipped 3.5 percent daily and Sunday.

Why? One word: trust.

People don't buy and read something they don't trust, and trust of the mainstream media continues to erode.

One could make the case that the Internet is eating into the circulation for the deadtree editions, but most newspapers haven't really figured out how to capitalize that and move eyeballs from the hardcopy to the screen copy.

And with the loss of eyeballs go the ad revenues.

Perhaps if these fine papers went back to, oh I don't know, reporting the news instead of attempting to fix elections they trust factor would go up.

ACLU: PAT ACT OK NOW

The ACLU has dropped its federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act, AP reports.

Okay, okay, here's my imitation of the ACLU:

The Patriot Act is a wholly unconsitutional attempt by the Bush administration to undermine the fundamental liberties of every American. If this is allowed to stand, the rights of everyone will be abridged. No one will be safe, no one will be beyond the reach of the JACK-BOOTED THUGS WHO WILL KICK IN YOUR DOORS, DRAG YOU INTO THE STREET BY YOUR HAIR AND FROGMARCH YOU OFF TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS. MY GOD, THERE'S NO ESCAPE FROM THEM -- THEY'RE EVERYWHERE! BOLT THE DOORS, HIDE CHILDREN, GET THE GUNS ( Oh crap, that's right -- we don't HAVE any guns!), GET THE...wait...oh...um....never mind.

"While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies," Ann Beeson, the New York-based associate legal director of the ACLU, said in a written statement.

"I'm a complete idiot," she added. (Not really)

And the best time for such announcement -- less than a week from the mid-term elections. One less thing for Democratic candidates to whip up hysteria about.

The Danger of High Expectations

The wave is coming, says the Washington Post -- echoing the numerous stories appearing in the media in recent weeks about how the Democrats are on the verge of sweeping Republican incumbents from office and taking control of a least one house of Congress.

"This is going to be a wave year," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia in the Wash Post story. "The only question is whether it will be medium-size wave or a high wave for the Democrats."

So there's the prediction. But here's the question: what if he's wrong?

What if he and all the other political pundits -- as well as the news media -- are wrong and the wave doesn't materialize? They've been wrong before, with some frequency and regularity.

And there is the danger for the Democrats, riding high on the fumes of their own overheated rhetoric, stoked by the predictions of the analysts.

If they win, the best they can hope for is to stalemate the Bush adminstration for the next two years. They won't have the votes to push through anything on their agenda. So they'll go into the 2008 election as the party of obstruction and partisanship.

If they lose, I'd suggest that one of two things could happen.

They could end up losing not only this year's mid-term Congressional elections, but possibly the 2008 presidential election as well -- thrown back into the continuing disarray and denial that has plagued them for the past six years. Held in the thrall of the leftwing extremists who dominate their party.

Or, they could take stock. Suck it up. Fire Howard Dean as party chairman. Move the party back to the center and seek candidates more aligned with most Americans, who stand a little right of center these days. In other words, candidates who actually stand a chance of winning in 2008.

That's what they could do. I've long since given up predicting what they will do, although I'd say scenario #1 is the better bet.

Lamentable Lamont Lags Lieberman

You can almost smell the desperation.

The current Quinnipiac poll showing Ned Lamont lagging behind incument Joe Lieberman by 17 points, the AP reports.

Despite the desperate spending spree by Lamont -- who has poured more than $10 million of his own money into the race -- it seems most unlikely that he can make up the ground lost to Lieberman.

I don't normally put too much stock in polls until: a. within a month of the election; and b. when spread is more than double the margin of error. Both now apply.

My what a difference a couple months make. When Lamont beat Lieberman in the primary by a scant 4 percent of the vote, it was hailed as the bellwether race for the nation. This was the one to watch -- the antiwar forces were mad as hell and poised to take over Congress.

While incumbent candidates who supported the war and the president -- primarily Republicans -- continue to struggle in many races, it is far from a sure thing that they'll be defeated now.

And if this is the race to watch, well, it doesn't bode well for the challengers. I mean if a 4 percent victory was such a resounding victory, what's a 17-percent margin?

Perhaps Connectcutians are seeing Lamont for what he is -- a one-note candidate who sings off key. A liberal nag who criticizes his opponent, but has no solutions of his own. An antiwar wag who thinks retreat and cowardice will keep us safe.

Ultimately, to borrow a phrase from Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau, just another dim dilettante trying to buy, marry or luck his way into office.

AP reports in the same story that Lamont has called on Senator John Kerry -- you know, the loser of the last presidential election -- to come stump for him.

Desperation indeed.

More Reid Sleaze

Sleazy land deals. Free boxing tickets.

Why, it's the kind of thing Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid normally rails against.

But the Atlanta Journal-Consitution notes Reids involvement in a sleazy land deal that scored Reid a pile of money he failed to disclose.

It also says he interceded in another deal for friends to procure a public right-of-way for a land deal they were working on.

And then there were the free boxing tickets he received while considering legislation on the sport.

You know the kind of things he normally chastizes Republicans for.

"Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid would be well advised to stop thundering about corruption in the Republican ranks or crying "cover-up" over the GOP's failure to promptly and appropriately deal with former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and his sexually explicit e-mails to congressional pages. Reid faces too many questions about his own behavior to crusade against the misdeeds of others," says the AJC.

Indeed.

Johns Hopkins Doctors Iraq Casualty Report

Media reporting that British medical publication The Lancet has published a report by Johns Hopkins University claiming that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died since the Allied invasion in 2003 -- a stupefyingly large number far bigger than anything anyone else has suggested.

The report is built largely on estimates and interviews with about 13,000 Iraqis -- they then projected the data over the entire nation to come up with their total.

In other words, they guessed.

This number is so high, it defies gravity. Brookings Institution Scholar Michael O'Hanlon called it "preposterously high."

The decidedly antiwar group Iraq Body Count, for example, puts the figure at closer to 50,000 based on actual counts from morgues and media reports.

Johns Hopkins and the Lancet pulled a similar stunt two years ago, when they reported casualties at about 100,000 -- again, roughly four times what Iraq Body Count was reporting.

The timing on this is certainly interesting -- less than a month before a major U.S. election where the war on terror is a key issue.

I would think if you wanted to hijack an election by telling lies you'd at least want to make the lies believeable.

But then, I don't do stuff like that, so I wouldn't know.

Liars, in context

Much ado in the media and among liberal pols about part of the National Intelligence Estimate leaked earlier this week that says the war in Iraq has actually increased terrorist recruiting.

Problem is, they only provided part of the statement, in essence lying by stripping the statement of context and completeness. George Bush trumped them by declassifying a more complete text (although not all of it, as that would have revealed the undercover sources).

The whole statement they refer to reads: The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

So basically it says engaging jihadists makes them madder, but defeating them will reduce the threat.

As White House Spokesman Tony Snow pointed out yesterday, the same could have been said about WWII -- by entering the conflict, the U.S. substantially widened the war but also hastened its favorable conclusion.

The report also says, among other things:

-- The spread of democracy in Muslim nations will reduce the threat of terrorism;

-- The loss of key leaders al-Zarqawi, al-Zawahiri, and (dare to dream) Usama Bin Laden, will fracture the terrorist movement

-- The strict Sharia law caliphate espoused by Bin Laden and his terrorists is largely unpopular among the majority of Muslims.

So, essentially, the Bush policy of engaging the terrorists and the states that sponsor them and promoting democracy in the Middle East is the right course. And bailing out of Iraq would be a disaster.

Hmm, I wonder why the leakers didn't leak those parts...

Interesting what happens when you read the whole text and don't just pick out the parts you like.

The statement clearly outlines ongoing risks associated with the war on terror, but does not categorically conclude the all is lost and the president is wrong.

But don't take my word for it -- read it for yourself.

Losing your head over opera

The Times of London reporting that an opera has been cancelled in Germany because of fears it will offend Muslims.

In the opera, Mozart’s Idomeneo, the King of Crete of displays the severed heads of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and Poseidon, and declares "the gods are dead."

The decision has unleashed a storm of controversy about free expression in German, but one viewpoint has been missing from the discussion.

Apparently, it's okay to offend Christians, Buddhists and...uh...whatever it is you call people who worship Poseidon.

But not Muslims.

Nice. Neat!

All Apologies

Muslim extremists threatening continuing violence against the West and non-Muslims alike over the Pope for comments he made last week about Islam and violence last week.

You know, some people just have no sense of irony.

Even moderate Muslims continuing to ask for a "better" apology.

Yeah, we'll get right on that.

As soon as they apologize for 9/11.

And the USS Cole attack.

And the African embassy bombings.

And the Khobar Towers bombing.

And the Marine Barracks truckbombing in Beirut.

And the Iranian hostage crisis.

That would be a good start.

Just once, I'd like to see these so-called moderates express outrage at the way extremists have hijacked their faith, instead of whinging and whining about how picked-on they are.

Just posting a photo for use elsewhere

The path to 11/6

I caught a little bit of ABC's "The Path To 9/11" last night, and now I understand why former members of Clinton administration and other Democrats are so pissed about it.

It generally portrays CIA Director George Tenet and National Secrurity Advisor Sandy Berger as hapless bureaucrats, who when faced with the opportunity to capture Osama Bin Laden were more concerned with who'd get the blame if things went wrong than they were with doing what was right.

I won't speak to the accuracy of the miniseries -- it is, after all, network television and a work of fiction, so I wasn't expecting much in the first place.

But it does remind us all of some central facts about 9/11 -- specifically, that the plot to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon wasn't born within President Bush's first eight months in office.

In fact, the threat of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was well known throughout the Clinton presidency, and his government fumbled multiple opportunities to intercept and stop them.

It's an issue that I believe will shadow the Democrats throughout the fall election season, and may put a serious dent in their plans to take control of the House of Representatives.

Many Democratic candidates are critical of the current administration's record in the war on terror, notably the invasion of Iraq.

But when pressed for what they would do, they default one of three answers:

-- Retreat from Iraq, which no serious person thinks is workable;
-- Stay the course, which is essentially the current administration's policy;
-- Hommina-hommina-hommina...

While the Democrats seek to tap the "deep anger" they allege many Americans feel about the war, they face one major problem -- virtually no one thinks they can do a better job than the Republicans in keeping us safe.

The Last of the Wilson Myths Dies

Hard to find much discussion of it in the media, but it finally looks like the last of former Ambassador Joe Wilson's fabrications and distortions has died.

First, he purported in a New York Times op-ed that he found no evidence that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium in Niger.

Except he had already told the CIA exactly the contrary.

Then he denied that his wife picked him for the CIA-sponsored survey trip to Niger to investigate that claim.

Except that she had.

Then he claimed that pro-war senior White House officials -- most notably VP Dick Cheney -- had outted his undercover wife to punish him.

Except that it turns a White House rival of Cheney and Co. who opposed them on the war accidentally let it slip to reporter Robert Novak over cocktails.

Notes the Washington Post in an editorial: Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

A shame indeed. But then, I'd expect that people like Mr. Wilson know no shame.

Let's hope that this new revelation will return Mr. Wilson to the obscurity and anonymity he so richly deserves.

The face of the enemy in a woman's fear

"Oh my God, oh my God, they're going to kill me, this is going to be it. I don't know when but they're going to do it," I thought.

I crawled over to Abu Hassan, the one who seemed more grown-up and sympathetic. His 9mm pistol was by his side, as usual.

"You're my brother, you're truly my brother," I said in Arabic. "Promise me you will use this gun to kill me by your own hand. I don't want that knife, I don't want the knife, use the gun."

This from Jill Carroll, the Christian Science Monitor reporter kidnapped by Sunni terrorists in Iraq, as part of her series on her captivity.

And in her pleas for a quick and relatively painless death we see the face of those who have declare themselves our enemies. Those who have declared war on all of us. Those who would gleefully murder our children.

It is good that we are in Iraq, fighting these monsters, because that is what they are.

How could anyone other than a monster frighten a woman so badly that she would beg to shot instead of having her head cut off?

Better advice for a new century

Is it just me, or are the current advice columnists just not cutting it?

They sort of dance around the answers, tip-toeing around the issues. What we need in this fast-paced world we live in are answers that get to the point quickly.

It's one of those rare cases where I actually think I could do a better job than most of them.

So, below you'll find a sampling of letters to various columnists, with their reponses and then my alternatives. You decide.

Annie's Mailbox (by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar)

Dear Annie: Both my boyfriend and I are over 40. He has two teenage children, and so have I. We plan to marry early next year, and I will be moving into his house because it's paid for and there are enough bedrooms for each child.

The problem is, his children are very lazy. They don't pick up after themselves, and the place looks like a tornado hit it. I figured when it got dirty enough, someone would clean it, but that never happens. Sometimes I go over there and want to faint.

I will not accept this slovenly behavior when their father and I marry. What can I do? Give me some ideas, please. -- Not Domestic Help

Their Answer: First, don't come on like gangbusters. They will resent it and can make all kinds of problems for you. You need to develop a solid, loving relationship with these children, and it would be best if housekeeping did not become a major source of conflict.

You and your boyfriend should make a list of chores that are distributed equally among all members of the household. He should be primarily in charge of monitoring his children, at least initially. You can remind them, gently, that it's Child A's turn to do dishes, or Child B needs to pick up his clothes, but don't call them slobs or yell about the mess. Check out the National Stepfamily Resource Center (stepfamilies.info) for more suggestions.

My Answer: Okay, you're an idiot. If you think anything is going to change after you two get married, you're nuts. So, crazy and stupid -- not a good mix. If you have any shot at all at fixing this you have to do it now -- tell that Reginald Q. McSissyboy that you're marrying that HE better man up to this and get his kids and his house under control and he can look someplace else for his good lovin'.

Dear Abby (By "Abigail Van Buren")

DEAR ABBY: My husband, "Clay," has a very abnormal relationship with his mother. (I'll call her "Jewel," although she's far from one.)

Clay frequently tells me I'll never be as perfect as Jewel, that she's a living saint. He tells her how much money he makes, but he won't tell me, and he refuses to tell me where his money goes. He insists we have separate checking accounts, but he shares an account with Jewel. Abby, Clay earns three or four times as much as I do, but he never helps financially.

He never buys groceries, and I've had to pawn my jewelry, work overtime and beg my parents for money to put food on the table for our three children. Clay will pay nothing toward the children's clothing or doctor visits, and he has never bought them -- or me -- a gift for any occasion. He has never bought anything for our home, either.

Jewel is nosy and butts into every aspect of our lives. She claims she "loves" us and is "trying to help." When she calls, if no one answers, she demands to know where we were -- and Clay tells her. If he goes somewhere alone and I ask where he's been, he says it's none of my business and accuses me of being controlling. Jewel calls to question him five times a day and it's OK, but when I ask him anything, I'm "intruding" on his life.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the picture. Abby, how can I get him to understand how his relationship with his mother is hurting me? Mothers and sons should be close, but not that close. It's time for him to cut the umbilical cord. I'm desperate -- please help me. -- MARRIED TO A MAMA'S BOY

Her Answer: The "saint" in the family must be you -- for having tolerated this situation long enough to have three children with this man.

Your mother-in-law may be part of your problem, but your marriage to Clay is so out of balance I almost hesitate to call it a marriage. When people marry, they have certain financial obligations toward each other that Clay seems to have ignored completely.

Marriage counseling might be helpful, but only after you have consulted a lawyer to learn what your rights are -- because it seems to me you're enduring all of the hassles and enjoying none of the privileges of marriage.

My Answer: Okay, you're an idiot. What were you thinking when you married this loser? Had you MET his mother beforehand? This situation is hopeless. Here's what you need to do: a) get a good lawyer and file for divorce; b) pack Clay a suitcase and put it on the front porch with a note telling him to go back to his "perfect" mother; c) change the locks. The sooner the better. You'll be far better off without him AND his mother.

Dear Margo (by Margo)

DEAR MARGO: My wife has always had what I refer to as a "trucker's mouth." Her whole family does. They can have conversations averaging at least one swear word per sentence. I'm no puritan and can swear with the best of them, but when I do, I try to do so only in appropriate company.

In the two years since our daughter "Gloria" was born, I've been asking my wife to curb her swearing. Alas, the cursing continues. I wasn't so worried during the first 12 months, figuring I'd give my wife some time to transition herself, and also because my daughter was too young to understand a swear word from any other word.

Now Gloria is 2, and she's talking up a storm. This battle came to a head last night when my wife was so wound up that she kept swearing about this and that, even after I repeatedly asked her to stop. (We were out for a walk with Gloria at the time.) She didn't, so I walked away from her, taking Gloria with me. We haven't spoken since.

--- CURSED IN MASSACHUSETTS

Her Answer: Well, at least you're not hearing her swear. (Kidding.) This is a problem you are unlikely to be able to fix. People who rely overly on swear words reveal a poverty of language skills, and to retrain an adult would be very difficult.

You are right about kids picking up on this language, however. Perhaps the first time your wife hears Gloria mention &*^%$# to her grandmother, she might rethink what she says. Failing this, should Gloria start talking like a sailor before she even knows what the words mean, you need to be the one to tell her that while Mommy is saying a no-no, Gloria is not allowed to.

I do believe there's a way to use an occasional vulgarity in conversation and still stay within the bounds of polite society. Ahem. But you have to gauge where you are. I had a bit of a potty mouth when my kids were little, but they were somehow able to understand the restriction: "Not in front of Gram!" Good luck.

My answer: Okay, you're an idiot. Seriously, you, your wife and your in-laws sound like a real delight. But at least you get that it's a problem, and you took the first step last night -- literally. When your wife "Tractor Sally" starts up, walk away and take the child. She'll get the point. And if she doesn't, keep walking. Stop pleading and start punishing. Time to grow a set and act like a man, sonny.

Did Ned Cheat?

Not content to merely buy the Democratic Senate Primary earlier this week, did challenger Ned Lamont try to steal it?

Lost in the post-election media gushing over Lamont's victory against incumbent Joe Lieberman is what happened to Lieberman's Web site, which crashed less than 24 hours before the election.

A NY Times story yesterday chronicles the event but provides no resolution. Here's a synopsis:

On Monday, Lieberman's site crashed under what his Internet provider said was an unusually large swell of traffic -- characterized as a denial of service attack. Lieberman's team immediately blamed the Lamont camp.

Lamont's team and his supporters denied they were involved, saying that Lieberman's site collapsed under its own weight because of inadequate server capacity. They claimed that site only had only 10 gigabytes per month of capacity.

But Lieberman's Internet service provider countered that the site actually had 200 gigabytes per month of capacity, which should have been ample.

Assuming that's true, the site was almost certainly targeted for a DOS attack -- it had, in fact, been hacked twice in the previous month.

Could losing the site less than a day before the election have made a difference in the outcome? Most certainly, considering that Lamont only prevailed by a margin of only 4 percent over Lieberman.

If Lamont's organization wasn't directly involved in the attack, it's almost certain that some of his supporters were.

Which raises questions about the character of his supporters, as well as his own --it's that whole "the company you keep" thing.

Li'l Ned Buys a Primary

It's official -- running on a platform of ignorance, intolerance, partisanship and cowardice, challenger Ned Lamont defeated incumbent U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman for the Democractic Party nomination yesterday, having spent $4 million of his own money on the campaign.

One could conclude that there were many reasons Lamont won -- Lieberman didn't run hard enough, Lamont tapped a rich vein of anger over the war, etc.

But the primary reason he won was because Lamont ran a very focused, very negative, very well-funded one-note campaign. And those types of campaigns work -- pity the voters who fall for it, and the rest of us who have to live with it.

His nomination also plays right into the hands of the Republicans, who can point to one more antiwar extremist Democrat candidate this call and paint all their opponents that way.

Proving that Abe Lincoln was right when he said you can fool some of the people all the time, Lamont polled 52 percent of the vote to Lieberman's 48 percent. To hear the talking heads tell it last night you would have thought Lamont had unceremoniously trounced Lieberman.

But he didn't, and the thin margin has encouraged Lieberman to run as an independent in the fall -- a bid he will likely win, according to political analyst Ken Rudin over at NPR.

And should anyone come to the conclusion that this marks some kind of national trend, take a look at Georgia, where Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney -- every bit as big an antiwar nutjob as Lamont -- also lost her primary to a nobody from nowhere.

McKinney -- known for her outrageous claims that the president knew about 9/11 beforehand, her vicious disagreement over the war, and for occasionally slapping police officers -- of course blamed everyone and everything else for her loss -- whites, Republicans, the voting machines, etc.

Why, she was so upset with the results, she had to rough up some news crews.

Typical.

Those who know him best...

Newspapers across Connecticut are endorsing incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman over one-note challenger Ned Lamont.

The Associated Press reports Lieberman got support from the Norwich Bulletin, the New Haven Register, The Day of New London and the Danbury News-Times.

He also was endorsed by the Hartford Courant and, most tellingly perhaps, the Greenwich Time -- the newspaper in Lamont's own hometown, where he performed his only service as an elected official as a town selectman.

A recurrent theme through the editorials: experience. Lieberman has tons, says the Greenwich Time, and Lamont very little.

While most call out Lieberman's support for the war as a negative, they all note that his balanced record and consistent service make him the more admirable candidate. And they also note that if he loses the primary but prevails in the general election as an independent, the Democrats lose a seat in Congress.

Meanwhile, current polls show the race tightening. Lamont had surged to a 13-point lead last week, but Lieberman has charged back trimming that lead to just six points.

Lamont on Colbert.

Relax. Stop hyperventilating. That's not a porn title. It refers to the appearance by Senate hopeful Ned Lamont on Comedy Central's Colbert Report last night.

Seems appropriate -- a dim dilettante candidate appearing on a fake news interview program.

Lamont is challenging incumbent and fellow Democrate Joe Lieberman, running on a "retreat and defeat" antiwar platform.

And he may win -- at least the primary next Tuesday, with polls currently showing him in the lead but within the margin of error. That's okay -- Lieberman would likely run as an independent, making it more palatable for Republicans to vote for him.

A story in the Stamford Advocate on his TV appearance flatters Lamont, but it seems pretty clear that he didn't get the jokes. As for delivering his message, he relied on glib one-liners like "We got into this mess not because we asked too many questions, but too few."

Of course, he didn't define what those unasked questions were -- probably because there weren't actually any.

Lamont's campaign platform epitomizes those of Democratic challengers this year -- they're mad about the war. Mad, mad, mad!

Unfortunately, they offer little else other than their anger.

When asked by Colbert what else motivated him to run, Lamont sputters about the deficit (which is declining, actually), health care, energy, and lobbyists' influence in Washington. Almost like he actually took the time to read the headlines in the New York Times before the interview.

Of course, what he hasn't done is show how he differentiates himself on those issues from Lieberman.

So it really just comes down to the war.

Ah well, Connecticut is a blue state however, and many will almost certainly overlook his lack of substance. Another rich liberal from Greenwich in Congress -- yeah, boy, howdy, that's just what we need. I guess they don't call it the Numbnuts State for nothing.

Oh wait -- that's Nutmeg State. Whatever.

Now on Al Jazeera: Desperate Housemullahs

In the "desperate moves " category, we now have senior al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri asking for Shiite Muslims and even non-believers to take up Jihad against Israel for its retaliation against Hizbollah and Hamas.

That's funny.

The two groups of people hated most by Al Qaeda members-- who are Sunni Muslims -- are Shiites and non-believers (Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, atheists, Christians -- essentially anyone who isn't a Sunni Muslim -- and think twice about most Sunnis).

In fact, Sunni Al Qaeda mullahs regularly tell their dull-witted followers that the quickest ticket to heaven is to kill an infidel, meaning any non-Sunni.

Shiites are a favorite target of Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, for example, where they are frequent targets of carbombings, street shootings, kidnap, torture and murder. And, well, Al Qaeda pretty much burned their bridges to the rest of years ago when the declared war on us, and started blowing up our embassies, hotels, nightclubs, military barracks, ships, New York skycrapers and the Pentagon.

So, hey Ayman, good luck with that attempt to reach out. You pathetic idiot.

Mellencamp: Celebrity Hypocrite for a New Century

Former VP Dan Quayle walked out of a John Mellencamp show last weekend, after Mellencamp stopped singing to hop on the political stump and diss the current administration.

AP reports that Mellencamp introed the song "Walk Tall" by saying "
This next one is for all the poor people who've been ignored by the current administration."

*Sigh* Typical.

Typical limousine-liberal kajillioinaire rock star preaching on what someone else ought to do about the poor.

Tell you what, John, you can lecture other people to your heart's content about "poor people" the instant you give all your money away to the needy.

You know, like those nasty old capitalists Warren Buffett and Bill Gates just did.

Just to make it sporting, I'll even let you keep $1 million -- everything else goes.

No?

Then STFU!

File this under "Collegiate Nutjobs"

Politicos calling for the firing of a UW-Madison professor Kevin Barrett who claims 9/11 was an "inside job," with VP Dick Cheney as the mastermind.

Two words: Whack Job.

Just the latest in a long list of outrageous claims by loopy leftists-- see U of Col. Prof Ward "They Deserved It" Churchill, and Robert "Warmed Over Conspiracy Theories About the 2004 Election that have already been debunked by no less than leftist publications Salon and Mother Jones" Kennedy."

Hey, Kevin, you're late for your Flat Earth Society meeting. Ooh, and your MUFON Secret Decoder Ring came in the mail today!

Embarassing.

Rockstar: Supernova -- Unwatchable

Rockstar: Supernova, huh?

More like a neutron star -- rapidly collapsing under its own weight.

I've tried two times now, and neither time could I make through an entire show.

Nevermind what a bunch of boneheads Clarke, Lee and Newsted are (and I LIKE Newsted), or how freaky-looking Navarro is.
It's not even that Brooke Burke is showing some miles -- is it just me, or does she LOOK like she's been nipped and tucked everywhere imagineable?

It's the contestants -- they are just awful. Can't sing -- can't carry a tune, can't stay on pitch. It's all strut, hair and make-up -- and I'm just talking about the guys! The women are even worse.

Unwatchable.

UN, AI Demand Humane Treatment, Release of Israeli Soldiers

The United Nations issued a statement calling for Israeli soldiers captured by the militant Palestinian organizations to be immediately released.

The capture of the three soldiers -- one held in Gaza by Hamas and two in Lebanon by Hezbollah -- predicated the recent spasm of violence in the region.

"Under the articles of the United Nations and world law, the unlawful kidnapping of the three soldiers serves only to exacerbate the situation," said UN General Secretary Kofi Annan in the statement. "The continuing conflict serves the interests neither of Israel or the Palestinians and undermine ongoing efforts to create a peaceful solution, and they should be freed immediately."

I completely made that up.

The current escalation of the conflict --with Israel conducting bombardment and raids into both Lebanon and Gaza in an effort to have the soldiers returned-- comes a year after Israel ceded to the demands of the Palestinians and peacefully returned control of Gaza to Palestinian control. All Israeli settlers were removed the occupied territory and the Palestinian Authority was given total control of the area.

In return, Hamas has repeatedly used Gaza as a cite for firing rockets into Israel daily since then. By some counts, more than 3,000 rockets have been fired into Israel by Hamas from Gaza in the past year. Israel has often retaliated by capturing and killing Hamas leaders and combatants, occasionally also injuring and killing Palestinian civilians. The capture of the soldiers was reportedly a response to that retaliation.

Amnesty International also issued a statement calling Hamas and Hezbollah to hold to the articles of the Geneva Convention in their treatment of the captured soldiers.

AI specifically said the the soldiers must not be tortured or killed, that AI and the International Red Cross should be given access to them to ensure they are being treated humanely, said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East Programme.

I made most of that up -- AI did make a statement that the soldiers be treated humanely, but as part of a larger press release calling for both the Palestinians and the Israelis to cease hostilities. And they did not call for the soldiers to be treated under the Geneva Convention, as they have demanded for the detainees at Gitmo.

In the past, soldiers captured by Hamas and Hezbollah all have been murdered.

NY Times Takes a Powder

The New York Times reporting that it received a package containing a suspicious white powder, setting off concerns that it may be biohazardous material like the anthrax spores sent to the mailrooms of other publications several years ago.

Let's call it what it is -- a terrorist attack, no matter who is behind it. Even if it was by some who have criticized the Times for publishing the details of intelligence efforts in the war on terror.

I wouldn't blame the Times if it demanded a full investigation by the U.S. government -- wiretaps, tracing of financial transactions, aggressive interrogation and confinement of suspects, the whole thing.

Oh wait...wouldn't want to violate anyone's rights here.

Best just to forget the whole thing, perhaps.

Hee hee. I love irony.

July Catch-up

Just back from vacation, so some posting to catch up on a few things from the past week.

Spent four days in Kentucky with my wife's entire family. A German family reunion with no beer. Who does that?

Anyway, within the past week Connecticut Democractic Senator Joe Lieberman kicked the butt of challenger Ned Lamont in their first pre-primary debate.

"Kicked butt" in a relative sense that is -- this WAS a couple Democrats, after all. My guess is it was probably a little closer to a Laverne-and-Shirley-style slapfight. But lets say in this case Joe was Laverne and he got a couple good punches in.

Lamont is running on the "runaway and hide" platform -- hardly what I'd call a recipe for success. I give Lieberman credit for standing up for his support of the war in Iraq, as opposed to most other Democrats who voted for it, but now are against it, except when they're for it, when they're not against it.

In any event, even the NY Times indicated that Lieberman made Lamont look like a confused, conflicted dilletante, which he is.

The Times also reported that the deficit is actually shrinking, thanks to increased tax revenues derived from corporate earnings and swelling executive bonuses.

In other words -- and this has just gotta KILL the Times and the Democrats -- the Bush tax cuts are working. The economy and the job market continue to grow, albeit modestly but enough to have the Fed concerned about inflation.

In Mexico, it looks like conservative candidate Felipe Calderon holds onto his slim lead for the presidential election. Leftist Andreas Manuel Lopex Obrador continues to contest the results, but it doesn't seem likely that he'll overturn them.

Close election? Contested outcome? Whee, this IS democracy. Don't forget that it was only six years ago that Mexico progressed from being a one-party state.

The trick for Calderon will be to continue expanding Mexico's economy while extending its benefits to more Mexicans. Despite consistent growth over the past six years, about half of Mexico's population lives below the poverty line. If he fails, we can expect another Hugo Chavez lookalike like Obrador, or worse, in the next election.

And finally, Italy beat France in the soccer World Cup. Go Italy! Or more loosely, anybody but France!