This article explains how Rep. John Murtha is seaking the Majority Seat in the House assuming of course that the democrats win in November.

I must say that I find it an unlikely senario..but beyond that I want to say that it speaks volumes about his district that such a man as Murtha who viciously slandered teh soldiers during the Haditha investigation should be set to win reelection to his seat. It is disgraceful that voters in this country would care so little about decency, integrity and honesty in a man that they would overlook such a despicable act and put this man back into office....let alone as Majority Leader.

Democrats talk about being ashamed of their country. The feeling would be mutual if this vile man were to be the Majority Leader of the House. If you are a conservative and are contemplating sitting out this election because republicans have ticked you off one time to many, as a fellow conservative who is a perturbed about it as you I would urge you to consider what it would mean to have a man like Murtha as the Majority Leader of the House. Think long and hard..and then go out and vote

More Menedez Corruption

U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez's closest political adviser was secretly recorded seven years ago boasting of political power and urging a Hudson county contractor to hire somone as a favor to Menendez, according to a transcript obtained by The Star-Ledger.

Tonight Menendez's campaign says he has severed his ties with the adviser, Donald Scarinci, after learning of the taped conversation.

If this was anywhere but New Jersey I would say stick a fork in him.

Jimmy Carter on Donald Rumsfeld

"I think he's one of the worst secretaries of defense we've ever had," the former president said of Rumsfeld. "Almost every decision he has made has aggravated his military subordinates and has also proved to be a mistake."

You would think one of the worst presidents in the history of this nation would be a a bit hesitant to make comments like that…but then again this is Jimmy Carter we are talking about.

Oliver Stone Ashamed

If only that were it….

Filmmaker Oliver Stone blasted President Bush Thursday, saying he has "set America back 10 years." Stone added that he is "ashamed for my country"

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out…I could think of a lot of things you should be ashamed of Oliver. That you choose your country shows how incredibly foolish you really are.

Mexico Opposes Border Wall

Mexico warned Thursday that the U.S. proposal to build miles of border fence will damage relations between the two countries.

Oh that’s a shocker. I think the fact that Mexico doesn’t want the wall should be a certain indicator that we need one.

Russ Feingold on his Terror views. (My apologies on losing the link)

"I've never been anywhere near one-dimensional on these issues," Feingold said in an interview. "I think that I've become - I hope - a credible spokesman for a muscular view of anti-terrorist activity by the Democrats as well as the country. The fact is, I've never been just an anti-war guy."

Bwaa! Ha! Ha! Ha! ROLFMAO! Ha! Ha! :Choke: :Cough: :Gasp: :Sniff: :Snicker:

Russ said “Muscular”

Pelosi on Intelligence gathering

We know that intelligence collection can involve highly intrusive methods. That is the reality of intelligence gathering. But when those methods are employed against people within the United States, it is imperative that they comply with the Constitution, and that they be subjected to regular and thorough congressional and judicial oversight.

Well there it is folks straight from the horses...er...mouth. The want to grant constitutional protections to the enemy at a time of war. The democrats are more concerned about protecting the “constitutional rights” of the enemy then they are about killing them. This is precisely why, no matter how disappointed you may be with republicans, you MUST get out and vote republican in the coming election.

Pelosi on the Election

"Forty is a number fraught with meaning in the Bible, whether it is the Jews and the Gaza, Noah and his wife and the ark, or Christ in the desert,'' Pelosi said she reminded the House Democratic caucus.

I know some folks get worked up when the secular, anti-christian left cynically invoke religious themes because they think it will get them votes. I on the other hand find is so ludicrously transparent that I it's humorous.

This is a good article over at Frontpagemag.com on the subject of waterboading and how completely vacuous the aruguiment is that it should be banned as torture.

Here is the meat.

Although waterboarding is normally employed as the last resort and the frequency of its use kept secret, it has been made known that so far it has worked every time it has been tried.

...

Given these facts, it is almost incomprehensible that there are some people in this country who insist that we relinquish this life-saving tool. Resting their objections on ethical grounds, they try to convince us that the procedure is morally unacceptable. But theirs is a misguided stance, since careful consideration shows that waterboarding is in fact one of the least injurious among interrogation techniques.

To see why this is so, it is enough to contrast it with the most common approach which involves a combination of sleep deprivation and cold exposure. Frequently requiring days and even weeks to break the captive’s spirit, it carries a real possibility of long-term physical and psychological damage. Worse still, it often fails to achieve the desired effect with the result that the captive is subjected to prolonged hardships, but we still end up without the information we so urgently need.

Waterboarding, on the other hand, is fleeting in duration with the actual discomfort lasting seldom more than a couple of minutes. And since a man can be safely deprived of oxygen for at least twice as long, there is almost no risk of long-term harm. The possibility of injury is further reduced by the fact that the procedure calls for no direct physical contact between the subject and his interrogators. Not even as much as pushing or chest slapping is required at any time, making waterboarding one of the safest and least confrontational among interrogation methods. Involving the lowest risk of long-term harm and the least amount of cumulative discomfort, it is also the most humane. Most importantly, it is the most effective.

And the important questions

Are a few moments of a terrorist’s discomfort more important than the lives of the innocents he seeks to destroy? Are two minutes of Moussaoui’s anguish worth more than the three thousand lives lost on 9/11? Does his momentary pain override a lifetime of hurt of those left behind?

Israel’s position is looking more and more tenuous these days.

I’ll start with this article about how Syria is planning on using the International Red Cross as a cover to immigrate Syrians into the Golan Height to create a Hezbollah like resistance movement there. It is no accident that this is occurring in the wake of Hezbollah’s success in the recent war in Lebanon.

Make no mistake, it was a success for Hezbollah. Israel’s leadership was weak and incompetent and caved when it mattered. Hezbollah, while physically defeated on the ground wasn’t destroyed and that fact has elevated the leader Nasrallah to the status of a new Saladin. Lebanon contrary to the naïve hopes of the western powers that forced a useless peace is doing nothing to disarm Hezbollah and bring the region under its control. Instead it places restrictions and impedances in the way of the Peace Keepers preventing them from any sort of effectiveness. Hezbollah reinfiltrates the south and reestablishes there control of the region unimpeded by the UN and Lebanese forces.

Meanwhile, Nasrallah appears boldly as a victory celebration where some 300,000 Hezbollah supporters wave Hezbollah flags and Israel fully aware of his presence does nothing.

According to this report the government of Israel decided to back off there threat to promise to kill Nasrallah…apparently because it would anger Hezbollah and spark another war.

Perhaps it’s just me but I don’t think government’s should issue statements like “Nasrallah’s days are numbered” unless they mean it.

And now this business about a looming showdown again in Gaza.

Apparently, the success of Hezbollah has encouraged the militants in Gaza to import stronger weapons capable of taking out Israeli tanks and helicopters and Israel finds itself in a position of needing to go back into Gaza YET AGAIN to clean out theses weapons.

Behind all of this is the looming specter of Iran arming the militants on all sides while itself seeks to build nuclear weapons for the stated purpose of eliminating Israel.

Not a pretty picture and It strikes me as long over due for Israel to take serious and significant action. They should have refused to stop until Hezbollah's leadership was eliminated. They should have gone further in my view and toppled Assad’s government in Syria.

One way or another Israel is going to get pushed into action. They ought to do something sooner rather than later when the costs are higher.

Update:  Just read this over at Yoni's blog.

A meeting between IDF officers, representatives of the Lebanese army and the UNIFIL commander ended without results on Tuesday, threatening to further postpone the IDF's complete withdrawal from Lebanon until next week.
...
The meeting exploded after the IDF demanded that UNIFIL adopt more combative rules of engagement. What particularly angered the IDF was an interview UNIFIL's commander Maj.-General Alain Pellegrini gave to The Jerusalem Post last week and in which he said the peacekeeping force would not actively engage Hizbullah guerrillas even if they were on their way or in the midst of an attack against Israel.

So would Condi Rice or Tony Snow care to step forward and explain to us again how wonderful this ceasfire is and how it will lead to a reshaped middle-east.

Ridiculous.

 

Up till now I had refrained from making comment on the whole President Clinton interview fiasco. I personally thought it was a bad move for Clinton and the democrats at large for him to respond in the manner he did. He came across as clearly defensive as well as out of control and a bit of a bull, not to mention just a touch paranoid.

I frankly find the whole blame game distasteful though, which is why I commend Rudy Giuliani for his position according to this Newsmax article.

"I think we should stop trying to blame our presidents for 9/11."

I concur.

I personally think we should stop trying to blame both presidents for 9/11. Clinton’s record of failures are a matter of historical record and no matter what Bill Clinton does it will remain a part of his legacy…that he failed to get Bin Laden. As a conservative I think that is where it should be left. I find no value in revisiting it if the only purpose in doing so is to wag a finger and say “Ha, Ha you failed”. Not only is the gloating unseemly considering the subject matter and the ultimate outcome but I think that there was plenty of blame to go around.

Certainly, Clintons administration made mistakes in judgment, but Clinton had a valid point when he complained that when he did try to do something republicans cried “Wag the Dog” There can be no doubt that republicans worked tirelessly to bring down Clinton and paralyze his presidency. To pretend that that had no effect on Clintons judgment on such matter strikes me as profoundly unjust. I’m not defending Clinton. He should have had the courage and clarity of purpose to do the right thing regardless of the political pressure. But it is hardly as if conservatives were totally blameless.

It also can not be argued that the Bush Administration did in fact sideline Richard Clarke. I know many republicans think Richard Clarke discredited and a political hack. I am not so eager to do so. I think the timing of the release of his book raises some questions on the veracity and motive behind its claims certainly. The man was certainly full of himself and had a bone to pick. But facts are stubborn things and he was clearly the most qualified person on terrorism and Bin Laden specifically at the White House when Bush took office and they made the conscious effort to sideline him. I think for an incoming president that was a foolish mistake. One that I believe had consequences.

It certainly can’t be argued that Bush shares the same measure of responsibility for his eight months that Clinton did for his eight years. To even attempt to do so evinces a paucity of reason. Neither, however, can one brush aside the clear and obvious mistakes that were made.

Ultimately, I think it is counter productive to run around pointing fingers and apportioning blame. The ultimate responsibility and blame for 9/11 is with the terrorists. As Giuliani stated,

"Americans didn't do Sept. 11, the Islamic terrorists did."

So let’s stop trying to make political hay by blaming the “other side of the isle” and start focusing on defeating the enemy.

As a final warning to republicans about casting stones, are we so utterly confident that the current administration is doing everything right in the war on terror? When that day comes that another attack on American soil has been accomplished by our enemies and many more hundred or thousands of Americans are dead…when we look back will we find no mistakes made? Will we be able to say we had no moment where 190 Taliban leaders were spared in a cemetery because we didn’t want to offend muslims. No terrorists let slip through our fingers because we didn’t want to kill and innocent bystander. “Judge not lest ye be judged” has a sort of ominous sound to it when I see this conservative licking of the chops over the blaming of Bill Clinton.

He made his mistakes and he has to live with them...let’s focus on not making the same ones ourselves.
.

This is an interesting article over at the Times Online.

When I first heard about the canceling of the Mozart Opera I shook my head and wondered about a Europe that was so willing to just cave into to fear of Muslim backlash that they would cancel an opera rather than risk offending muslims. "Why not just surrender and be done with it," I thought.

Indeed I think that Der Standard put it quite well when they said.

“Never in German culture has there been such a display of pre-emptive subservience,”

BUt it seem that with the exception Deutsche Oper director Kerstin Harms germans aren't so willing to just give up the ghost.

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, cautioned that cancelling the opera would be an infringement of the basic right to free expression. “We must be alert that we don’t give in to our fears of potentially violent radicals,” she said. “Self-censorship out of fear is not acceptable.”

Now thats what I like to hear. A bit of backbone from a european leader...even if only for a moment.

Well it took them long enough but it seems that the folks over at the Pentagon are finally coming to the conlusion that suicide bombing might actually be encouraged by Islam. This article over at WorldNetDaily explains how a recent report fromt he pentagon came to the conlcusion that the Quran itself is what drive Muslims into suicide attacks.

For myself I have never had any doubt. When I first read the Quran in 1990 in college I knew that it called for violence against nonmuslims. My understanding of Islam since as I have gone through studies of the Byzantine Empire, The Cursades and the history of Islam istelf have lead me to the inescapable conclusion that Islam is serious about spreading by the sword.

This article highlights how suicide bombers are truely motivated by the promises of the Quran

"His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God," the document explains. "The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter.

"And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah," the briefing adds. "Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."

The briefing – produced by a little-known Pentagon intelligence unit called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA – cites a number of passages from the Quran dealing with jihad, or "holy" warfare, martyrdom and Paradise, where "beautiful mansions" and "maidens" await martyr heroes. In preparation for attacks, suicide terrorists typically recite passages from six surahs, or chapters, of the Quran: Baqura (Surah 2), Al Imran (3), Anfal (8), Tawba (9), Rahman (55) and Asr (103).

....

Muslim clerics do not disavow the virgins-for-martyrs reward as a perverted interpretation of the Quran.

And even Muslim leaders in the West condone suicide bombings. British scholar Azzam Tamimi recently told 8,000 Muslims in Manchester, England, that dying while fighting "George Bush and Tony Blair" is "just" and "the greatest act of martyrdom." Earlier, he said it's "the straight way to pleasing Allah."

And the founder of an allegedly mainstream Muslim group in Washington – the Council on American-Islamic Relations – also has given his blessing to suicide bombings.

Addressing a youth session at the 1999 Islamic Association for Palestine's annual convention in Chicago, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad praised suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam," according to a transcript provided by terror expert Steve Emerson's Investigative Project.

"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," Ahmad asserted. "They kill themselves for Islam."

I think it is long past time for us to stop this foolish talk about "religion of peace".  How on earth can we ever expect to achieve a victory over an enemy if we refuse to understand it?

A few days ago I posted a quote on "Mohammedanism" by Sir Winston Churchill. Today, thanks to Atheling over at http://thepugilstick.blogspot.com, I am posting a quote from John Quincy Adams on Islam.

John Quincy Adams on Islam:

"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar (i.e. Muhammed), the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an imposter, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic Law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE...Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men." (Emphasis in the original)

The press conference with President's Bush and Karzai yesterday was great.

Karzai hit a home run and the president was nice and agressive. It was nice to see some fighting spirit in the President.

ONe quote in particular by Karzai stood out to me. UPon hearing it I thought to myself...

"This guy gets it better then the democrats."

They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated -- extremism, their allies, terrorists and the like.

If our own democrat party only had half that clarity of thought on the matter.

The President himself had an A+ moment with this.

Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe. The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason: They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.

You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.

You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement. They've used all kinds of excuses.

That is about as good of a response to this NIE nonsense as is possible to deliver.

I urge folks to read the transcript for the whole press conference.

Three cheers for Senator Inhofe.  He gets it and fully understands that Global Warming is a political charade.

I strongly urge folks to go read his speech delivered on the Senate floor.

I know this is a bit late in posting but since its my blog...tough.

Hugo Chavez got one thing right in his speech to the U.N. Well speech is probably a stretch. A rambling nonsensical tirade would be more accurate. But he did say

I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept -- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It's worthless.

Bingo. Yep. Dead on.

I have long argued that the U.N. is a defunct organization. It’s central problem stemming from its format of one nation one vote. An absurd notion when you consider that the majority of the countries of the world are failed states functioning as dictatorships and banana republics. The idea that an accumulation of these failed states can responsibly and reasonably govern the world is obtuse to say the least. They have demonstrated their inability to do this time and time again with such utter failures as the oil for food program, the genocide in Rwanda, corruption at the highest levels and rape bribery and extortion at U.N missions. The U.N. is reflective of its membership.

Some argue that it is a good forum allowing the nations of the world to engage in diplomacy. What value does such a forum have really? A forum where America can be reviled by tin horn dictators and lunatic 12 imam crazies from Iran? What is the value in this? On the contrary it is an impediment to effective diplomacy, because it provides a forum for these states that on there own would take their rightful place…which is to say that they would wield no real global power and have little in the way of influence. The U.N. however, allows them collectively to do just that and the manner in which they choose to wield it is on display for all to see. A maxim of war is to divide and conquer. Why then should we provide our enemies with a forum within which they can unite and be stronger in that unity then they could were they on their own.

Consider the sheer offensiveness of what was on display at the UN this week. Kofi Annan blames Israel for all the world’s problems. Chavez, a pathetic dictator masquerading as a democratically elected president comes onto OUR soil and calls the nations of the world to unite to defeat us. Ahmadinejad, an apocalyptic lunatic that wants to bring about the end of the world through the destruction of the Jews is allowed to come and speak to the world and receives resounding applause. All of this of course happens on our dime (or mostly so). SO in short the American public pays for enemy nations to send their representatives onto our soil and be treated to our hospitality while the revile us insult our president and call for our nations destruction.

No more. Enough is enough. It is long past time for this organization to be put to rest. Some have argued that a new organization should be created. I am not convinced. The nature of these organizations is to grasp for more power and take upon themselves greater authority than they should have. America’s actions should never be held captive as it is now to other nation’s greed and corruption. Our action in our defense should never be held captive to the trading privileges and self interest of foreign powers. An organization where democratic organizations can get together and talk is one thing, but such an organization should be void of any controlling or binding authority. It should serve those who are it’s members not govern them. The U.N has already shown not only what an utter failure such an organization can be, but also how counter productive to any meaningful and lasting solutions to global problems they can be as well.

The U.S. should cut its funding from the U.N. and kick them off our soil. A clear signal that we consider the organization to be obsolete. We should retain our security council seat only as a means of thwarting the organization from acting against our interest internationally while it goes through its death throws. The U.N. belongs on the trash heap of failed ideas along with the League of Nations.

 

The NIE report that indicates there are more terrorists as a result of the war in Iraq is so far a big yawner. I know the democrats are trying to make hay out of this but I personally fail to see what the big stink is.

For one thing, since all we know is a small part of the total report and that part was leaked I personally think judgment ought to be withheld considering the lack of complete information. Of course that’s not the way things work so based on this tiny bit of information the Democrats are now trying to build a “see I told you so” case for leaving Iraq.

Personally, I question the accuracy of the notion that specifically Iraq is causing more terrorists. Iraq as apposed to what…Afghanistan? SO if we were just fighting in Afghanistan there wouldn’t be more terrorists? Nonsense. There are more terrorists because the enemy is organized and is working to recruit people. IF we had never gone into Iraq I would argue we would still have more terrorists. The enemy would still be working to destroy us. They wouldn’t go away just because we weren’t in Iraq.

The very notion is ludicrous.

However, let’s say for the sake of argument that Iraq is making it worse. What would the democrats solution be? Leave Iraq. I thought they didn’t just want to cut and run? So at the first indication that there are actually more terrorist they say we have to stop fighting in Iraq and run away. In short they suggest we do the one thing that Osama Bin Laden indicated was the telling weakness of the United States. There unwillingness to fight.

Why yes that’s a brilliant plan democrats. Let’s just fulfill everything Bin Laden said about us and run away because…gasp…THERE ARE MORE OF THEM. Oh heaven forbid we might make them angry by fighting them. We should of course talk to them soothe their ruffled feathers., Let them know that it was really just the wicked GW that wanted all of this but really we are a nice docile people who will do whatever you want so long as you stop hating us.

No wonder people say the democrats are void of ideas.

As far as I am concerned, if more terrorists want to come fight us in Iraq, then good. Let them come. All the easier to kill them. If someone is going to go run off and turn jihadist because America is trying to set up a democratic government in Iraq, I would submit that that person was fairly well inclined to be our enemy in the first place then.

The bottom line is that if we are going to fight the terrorist anywhere…Iraq…Somalia…Afghanistan…anywhere, then the enemy is going to recruit more people to fight us. The fact that we are fighting means that more of the enemy is going to stand up to fight as well. The only alternative is to not fight, but since not fighting means surrendering and losing, that isn’t an option. One thing is certain though. If we do cut and run in Iraq it will be hailed as a victory for the terrorists. If people think recruitment for the terrorists is up now…just imagine how easily they will be able to recruit once they make us stick our tail between our legs and run away.

For all those who think the threat of "Radical Islam" is a recent phenomena.

Winston Churchill in 1899

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancienmet Rome."

Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

The story of the day is this business about Pakistan being threatened with being bombed to the stone age.

The democrats are no doubt ecstatic after a nerve wracking day of headlines about liberal love child Hugo Chavez calling our President "the devil" and getting standing ovations from liberal idiots at a local college, they were no doubt quite nervous about what this was going to do to their prospect in 06.

Well I got two pieces of news for the democrats.

1. Your chances are overblown and overstated for 06 anyway. For a decade plus I have listened to talking heads talk about how the dems are gonna win at the polls and every election these so called experts turn out to be dead wrong..embarrassingly wrong in fact. SO wrong that one wonders why they are still called experts. My guess is the same is going to hold true in 06. The dems may pick up a few seats but the repubs will stay in charge.

2. THis whole business about bombing Pakistan back to the stone age is a yawner.

I hope that the democrats jump on this like they do everything else and try to squeeze every ounce of political juice out of it. I think it would be a mistake for them. For one thing. Does any one really think that Pakistan changed their loyalty to the old Taliban because we said pretty please. Far more shocking to me would be to learn that there were fools in the US that DIDNT think we had threatened Pakistan after 9-11. Indeed I would have been seriously distraught to know that we hadn't. When we get attacked on American soil in the manner we did and 3000 Americans lose their lives...I fully expect some threats emanating from the White House. I'm guessing most Americans would feel the same way. Just as with the Presidents assurance that he would go after Bin Laden even if he is found to be in Pakistan.

Good for you Mr.President. And If Pakistan needs another warning shot then by all means ante up.

Please democratic leadership, please try to make hay out of this.

This article at the N Y Sun shows that not everyone involved in a University is off their rocker.

Overruling a prominent dean, the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, yesterday withdrew an invitation to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The president should be commended for his decision.

Mr. Bollinger said he canceled Mr. Ahmadinejad's invitation because he couldn't be certain it would "reflect the academic values that are the hallmark of a University event such as our World Leaders Forum."

Ya think?  I'm just curious which part tipped you off...the whole "the Holocaust never happened.." routine or maybe it was the "jews are cattle" or how about the "Israel must be destroyed." I'm just curious which one of those items was the deal breaker that you idiot dean of international and public affairs Lisa Anderson didn't quite catch on to.