That implies that he thinks it would be harmful to the economy to raise taxes on “the wealthy few.”  If it’s a bad idea in an economic downturn, how is it a good idea any other time?  Someone needs to have a talk with the Messiah about logic and contradiction.

I’m sure it pained the Huffington Post to run this story about McCain’s speech not only topping Palin’s in the ratings, but also the messianic Obama’s speech, and every other convention speech in history.  Obama may be largely responsible for the surge in interest this election cycle, but that does not mean he’ll reap all the benefits.

Finally, Michael Barone does a good job of summing up the events and results of the last week at the GOP convention.  Now we’ll have to see how successfully McCain/Palin can execute on the pivot they made towards being maverick reformers, instead of focusing on “experience.”

In the meantime, my favorite line from National Review Online this morning about Joe Biden:

Real people don’t define “experience” as appearing on unwatched Sunday-morning talk shows every week for 35 years and having been around long enough to have got both the War on Terror and the Cold War wrong.

The idea that 6 terms in the U.S. Senate make him a “foreign policy expert” is really amusing to me.  There’s a big difference between chairing a committee on foreign policy, and being the policy maker and executor of America’s foreign policy.

This goes back to the fact that Senators do not make good presidents.  But then again, that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong.  And yes, I realize that McCain is in the same boat.

My favorite Biden quote (of this presidential campaign) had to do with Rudy Giuliani:

There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11.

Here it is on YouTube:

EO News: Snapshot of Past Climate Reveals No Ice in Antarctica Millions of Years Ago – July 28, 2008

Here’s a rundown.  You can click the position of each person for the supporting press release or article that I drew the conclusion from.

The folks over at betterimmigration.com have a lot of information on where the candidates stand, as well.

Think carefully. Kerry has once again proven that he is unfit to be anything other than a gaseous wind-bag senator.  I bet Democrats just love him out there flapping his gums like this…

What a surprise that Republican Senators Linc Chafee and George Voinovich sided with the Democrats in defeating the total repeal (for now).

I agree with him that President Bush had a good week – the speech at the Naval Academy was long overdue, as many have said. There was a lot of substance to the speech in terms of the specifics he gave on progress in Iraq, and of course there is even more in the document released by the White House on the same day.

In the days since that speech, I’ve had to kneel down and thank God several times that John F. Kerry is not our Commander-in-Chief. I wonder if his position on Iraq is even clear to him! Several weeks or months ago, he was outraged that not enough troops were in Iraq. Just the other day, he publicly lectured President Bush on the danger of American troop presence pumping up the insurgency. Rush Limbaugh talked about it, and there’s an excerpt here where where he talks about Kerry’s terrible interview on the Today show. There’s an article on FOXNews.com that itself has Kerry flip-flopping. Apparently flip-flopping is not just an election year sport for him, but a way of life. Be sure to remember this, you people, when we come to the 2008 election campaign.

This bird flu thing is getting scarier every day. Today I heard on the radio that O’Hare airport has set up a quarantine center for international passengers who arrive with bird-flu symptoms. It seems inevitable that will happen in the not-too-distant future. I came across a column that is both interesting and disturbing from Charles Krauthammer about the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, which killed 20-40 million people in about a year: A Flu Hope, Or Horror? Apparently that virus has been brought back into existence by scientists after being absent from the world for 80 years.

The journal Nature has a page dedicated to bird flu, with a timeline of articles over the past several years.

Finally, the news story that is neither news nor story: that the Bush administration “staged” a teleconference with troops in Iraq. Facts:

• Soldiers were not, contrary to insinuations by the mainsteam media, told what to say.
• The soldiers were given the questions that they would be asked in advance, so that they could prepare their own answers, and be comfortable giving them on television, to their Commander-in-Chief, which would be daunting for anyone.
• The media is in the business of staging things, so I’m not so sure why they are so worked-up (actually, I know perfectly well why – Bush is a Republican).

Let’s recall, shall we, a few highlights from the long and sordid history of staged media events. NBC’s Exploding SUVs. Dan Rather’s Faked documents. Reporters clinging to lightpoles during hurricanes. Ring any bells? And let us not forget our illustrious former President Clinton, whose never-ending antics the kind people at the Weekly Standard reminded us of today in their blog:

But then, spying the stones at his feet left by his advance staff to show him where his camera mark was, the President crouched down and began to arrange the stones into a cross. He gathered more stones to finish the cross, and then bent his head as though in silent prayer.

See the full posting here. This is a Clinton Classic^TM.

Krauthammer mentions that his commentary might be construed as elitism, but then notes that the Supreme Court is an elite institution where high standards are not only desirable, but required.

I’m not sure what to think about this nominee, and frankly, I doubt my opinion will become more informed by her confirmation hearings. After listening to so many fellow conservatives weigh in on this nomination with varying degrees of chagrin, I suppose my take is somewhere in the neighborhood of cautious optimism. Yes, the president could have nominated someone that is more obviously qualified, and that has a more visible or discernible philosophy.

In the end, I am at least slightly comforted by the fact that Bush has known her for quite a long time, and has made it clear what his ideal justice looks like. I just hope he didn’t punt because of his recent decline in approval rating. Sadly, we won’t really know whether Miers is suitable for at least a year, well after she is confirmed, if she is confirmed.

Krauthammer ends with, “For a presidency marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big things, this nomination is a sorry retreat into smallness.” Since this nomination is what it is, and is unlikely to be withdrawn unless something truly unforeseen happens, I hope she can prove him wrong.

I have read a lot of different opinions out there, including those who say that we should remember the old days, when the federal government would not have assisted in any significant way. I first received this opinion via e-mail, but then found it online as well. The facts are questionable, as I couldn’t find evidence of any hurricane in 1927 in my cursory search. However, the underlying sentiment is a reflection of a broader opinion by many people that we should not simply dole out federal money in the form of blank checks to blindly rebuild the city. Some of the more conservative Republicans in congress are not entirely on-board with the President’s plans, either.

National Review’s John Tamny writes an interesting column, talking about the flood of 1927 that hit New Orleans (probably the disaster that the writer above mistook for a hurricane). In short, we need to take care that we are not spending money for political expediency, something that both Democrats and Republicans seem all to willing to do, trying to prove that their respective party is more sympathetic to the plight of gulf coast residents than the other. Nothing the federal government has done in the entire history of this country suggests that it is the best entity to re-construct an entire region. It will obviously have to be involved, but the less so, the better for all of us – especially the residents of that area.

I love how East-coast liberals have jumped at the chance to do some Monday-morning quarterbacking on the tragic situation in New Orleans. I firmly believe that none of these people have the slightest idea just how bad the situation is down there, just like I don’t. You can’t get the whole picture by watching television or reading the New York Times. Instead, they believe that the federal government possesses some kind of magic wand, and that they failed to wave it around quickly enough.

Come on, people. This is a catastrophe of biblical proportions. Lots of people are dead, and more will die. It’s going to be an ugly situation for a long time, regardless of how “prepared” the govenment was to deal with it, and regardless of the quality of President Bush’s speeches. The truth is that these partisan hacks are just finding another excuse to demonize the president and his administration because they hate him and everything he stands for. Wouldn’t it be great if they expended this much energy actually doing something to help the people in the gulf states?

Today the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an unfortunate decision in the case of Kelo v. New London.

The city of New London decided to redevelop an area of town to promote economic revitalization in the area, and sought to acquire the property that was occupied by private homes. Most homeowners agreed and took the compensation offered, but some refused, forcing the city to begin eminent domain proceedings. Now, this kind of thing happens all the time, but it historically has been used in a case such as the building of a highway, or some other project that serves a purely public purpose. The problem in this case is that the city planned to build office buildings, a hotel, shops, restaurants, and even other houses on the site! These plans sound great, but they are fundamentally private enterprises that have no purely public purpose.

The Fifth Amendment states, in relevant part:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The amendment clearly states that property can only be taken for public use when fair compensation is given. It mentions nothing about taking private property for use by other private citizens or enterprises. The bare five justice majority of the Court seemed to decide the case based upon the notion that the city’s economic development plan was “carefully considered,” even though they admit that “the city is not planning to open the condemned land

There’s just not much to say now that the insanity of the 2004 election year is long-since over…

I guess I’ll have to find something interesting to devote my attention to, as a replacement for all the energy I was spending on politics…

It’s almost difficult to return to normal (or nominal) after such a long Presidential campaign. It lasted for two years, after all. I’m not sure what the news channels will do — I suppose we can expect hyper-coverage of the Scott Peterson trial until that ends. Joy.

Some final election thoughts:

I think the election went quite well – as well as it could have with everyone so attentive to possible negative scenarios. The outcome was also convincing and significant enough to avoid a repeat of 2000. Having said that, I also applaud Senator Kerry for his discretion in recognizing his own defeat, and accepting it so graciously. I cannot, however, say the same for Senator Edwards. He still seemed to have his attack-dog hat on, which wasn’t very endearing, to say the least.

The Democrats have a lot of hard times ahead, having failed to unseat President Bush, as well as losing a significant number of seats in the Senate, and some in the House. The biggest blow, however, was the loss of Senate minority leader Tom Daschle. Almost better news than the presidential result, as far as I’m concerned!

I think the prospect of obstructionism in the Senate is significantly reduced now, not only because of the gain of 4 seats, but also because of the departure of Obstructor-in-Chief Daschle. This should make it easier to follow-through on policy and legislative issues, and also may improve the chances of getting judicial appointments through, which is very important.

I am saddened by the word that Attorney-General John Ashcroft may resign. I am not sure why – whether he’s being forced out, or whether he just doesn’t want to continue in the job. I think he’s a good man, and I believe he has been criticized and demonized unfairly by the left-wing, and by the mainstream press.

I also find it interesting that I’ve heard the term “lame-duck” about half a dozen times in the press, referring to President Bush. So, already they’re trying to divert attention from what was really an overwhelming victory, compared to 2000. If there’s one thing that came out of this campaign, it was that the media really showed its cards with respect to political bias. The ratings results for election night showed that Americans recognized it. CBS came in last.

George W. Bush is currently leading the popular vote by over 3.5 million votes, or 51% to 48% for John Kerry.

Ohio is over, even though some networks still refuse to call it.

Nevada went for Bush, and Iowa and New Mexico look to be heading that way.

That gives us 286 electoral votes for Bush, and 252 for Kerry.

As Democrats still liked to remind us up until November 1st, 2004, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, even though it turned out to be a sadly lacking consolation prize. It will be interesting to see if they still think it is important enough, especially with Bush winning over 50%. Not even Bill Clinton did that.

Lookin’ pretty good.

Also:

Bush clearly has the upper-hand. If he can take Florida and Ohio, or several other combinations, he’ll get over the 270 electoral vote threshold and win the election. Kerry is on defense.

WorldNetDaily: Discovered papers: Hanoi directed Kerry

Who knows if this is true, but it certainly would not be surprising!

Thankfully, the electoral math seems to be stacking up against Kerry at this point. The best site I’ve found for keeping track of polls is RealClearPolitics.

Specifically, The electoral count update.

Where do I begin?

The first debate between Bush and Kerry was basically a wash, I think. Kerry certainly slapped a “new and improved” label on himself, trying to make people forget about his past indecision. He looked more polished than the President, which should surprise no one.

However, this is not a Yale Debating Society tournament. The outcome of this competition actually matters – the future of America is at stake, not to mention the future of a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan. Everyone, including those who support Kerry, know where President Bush stands on ever issue (especially those involving our national security, both at home and abroad). Although Kerry has apparently decided where he stands on the war on terror, he has only done so about a month before the election!

Some notable points:

• I think the President was very effective in arguing that John Kerry cannot be the Commander-in-Chief and bring allies back to the table at the same time that he makes statements like, “the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time” and “[the war] is a grand diversion.” How can American troops follow someone like that? How could our allies engage in something that Kerry calls a grand diversion?
• Some of the talking heads on TV are making an issue of the President’s “reactions” during the debate. Kerry’s minions are saying the President appeared arrogant, annoyed, and aloof at various times during the debate. Democrats will reportedly even release a video of these expressions. Having watched the entire debate very closely, I think the President’s reactions were minimal, and well within the acceptable range of how you might expect a person to react. He clearly feels very strongly about issues of national and homeland security. It’s probably worth remembering that Al Gore’s reactions and expressions were several orders of magnitude more obnoxious than what we saw from the President last night. Not only did he sigh very loudly and actually roll his eyes, but he even interrupted then-candidate Bush several times with statements like (insert snotty tone) “that’s not true!” Let’s keep this in perspective.

I thought this was one of the best exchanges of the debate:

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test….

President Bush’s response was right on target:

BUSH: Let me — I’m not exactly sure what you mean, “passes the global test,” you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.

My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

This shows Kerry’s true internationalist colors. How much is enough? 12 years and 17 UN resolutions apparently do NOT pass the “global test” for Kerry. Kerry also said that we have to earn the respect of the United Nations. Quite frankly, I’m not sure we should respect the U.N. after what has been revealed about the corruption between the U.N., France, and Germany in the administration of the oil for food program. As the world’s only superpower, we don’t have to earn anything from the U.N.

This brings me to Kerry’s four point plan for winning in Iraq:

1. Internationalize – bringing more countries to the table.

Again, he is disrespectful to our TRUE allies by saying their contributions both during and after major combat operations are not enough. John Kerry expects to solve all the problems in Iraq by convening a summit. I hate to break it to him, but a bunch of diplomats sitting around a table is not going to make things better. These discussions are currently happening, anyway.

2. Training Iraqi security forces

As the President stated, this is happening already – over 100,000 soldiers and police officers have been trained to date, with an additional 25,000 planned by the end of 2004.

3. Redesigning the reconstruction program

Kerry apparently wants reconstruction efforts to go faster. He wants U.S. officials to “cut through the red tape.” I seriously doubt the Senator is capable of cutting through red tape, or even cutting anything at all, unless it relates to the intelligence budget or military equipment funding.

4. Hold elections next year

The President has repeatedly stated that elections in Iraq will take place in January, regardless of terrorist actions.

In summary, Senator Kerry’s four point plan has nothing new in it. The administrations is presently doing all these things, but Kerry somehow thinks he can do everything “better” without actually specifying HOW he would do so.

In the end, what should voters look at to decide who can best lead this country for the next four years? John Kerry may have looked good at the debate, but there’s one thing he cannot run away from or change: his twenty-year voting record in the Senate that is filled with inconsistency, and being wrong on the issues. I found it amazing that he referred to such conservatives as Ronald Reagan and even George Will during the debate – he actually said “I believe that Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, and the others did that more effectively, and I’m going to try to follow in their footsteps,” speaking about rebuilding our alliances.

Voters should beware: Kerry was constantly against President Reagan’s strategy for winning the cold war, and now he is telling us during the last month of a Presidential campaign that he’ll follow in the footsteps of President Reagan.

This is the funniest use of the Internet I’ve seen in a while…and quite timely!

Global Test

The facts about the president’s service.

I heard this article referenced on Hannity & Colmes on Friday, 9/10/2004 by William J. Bennett. He stated that it outlines authoritative facts regarding President Bush’s service in the National Guard during the Vietnam era, and that no one has disputed its veracity. The article is from February, 2004.

Interesting.

By the way, Robert Reich is both obnoxious and short.

I find it absolutely incredible that John Kerry would schedule a speech/rally at midnight last night, just a little while after President Bush finished his acceptance speech at the RNC.

Even more mind-boggling is that he would call the President “unfit to lead the nation,” in addition to criticizing both he and Vice President Dick Cheney for not serving in Vietnam. Kerry: “I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and who misled America into Iraq.” So, apparently he’s flip-flopped again, and is now against the war in Iraq.

The fact that this happened last night is more evidence in a mounting pile that the wheels are indeed coming off the Kerry campaign.

First of all, President Bush did not question Kerry’s commitment to defend this country. Kerry is acting as if Republicans are engaging in character assassination, when in fact they are simply dissecting his voting record in the Senate – a record he is obviously not proud of. Perhaps the Senator can suggest a better way for the American people to measure his true intentions and convictions, if he wants to make his 20-year voting record off-limits.

The few times Kerry’s Vietnam service was mentioned at all at the RNC, it was to praise his service as admirable, etc., to which delegates actually CHEERED! President Bush didn’t mention Kerry’s Vietnam service in any way, and yet the Senator had to go back to it again last night. One one hand, he engages in legal maneuvering to try and stop the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth from expressing their views, and on the other, the Senator seems completely unable to stop speaking about Vietnam himself. It is quite clear that he and his campaign are in an absolute state of panic after seeing his record carefully examined by almost every speaker (including Zell Miller, quite successfully) at the RNC.

The juxtaposition between President Bush’s positive messages last night on where he wants to take the country in the next four years, and John Kerry’s hearkening back to 4 months in Vietnams that somehow make him more qualified than any other human being to serve as Commander in Chief will undoubtedly resound with many voters.

Yet another example of the Democratic spin machine. Why don’t they speak to the real issue, instead of redirecting the blame to President Bush? The so-called web of connections between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans is no different than the de-facto web of connections between the Kerry campaign and MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. It is horribly disingenuous of the Democrat party to claim otherwise.

I find it amazing. There has always been a feeling among veterans that only other veterans have the right to question or criticize aspects of the military, or specific conflicts. Anyone else who does so is instantly labeled a “coward” for not serving their country. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin did this to Dick Cheney.

Now the latest in the Swift Boat Veterans controversy, and I’ll try to boil it down very simply:

1. Kerry’s campaign accuses President Bush of orchestrating the ads, and John Edwards calls on him to “stop these ads.”

2. Yesterday, President Bush said that he thought Kerry “served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.” When asked if he would renounce the particular ad in question, Bush said, “that means that ad and every other ad. I don’t believe we ought to have 527s. I think they’re bad for the system.”

3. John Edwards then said, “The moment of truth came and went, and the President still couldn’t bring himself to do the right thing.”

Incredible. I find it amazing that John Kerry doesn’t ever address the substance of the ads, but instead runs to the FEC and his legal team to combat the allegations. He accuses Bush of “smear tactics.”

What he fails to recognize is that the Swift Boat Veterans have as much a right to participate in the political process by airing their views as John Kerry himself does. It is downright un-American of Kerry to try to deny them their First Amendment rights.

John F-ing Kerry actually had the gall to accuse the Bush administration of dragging its feet on implementing the reforms recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

Let’s look at the facts:

• The report came out on July 22
• The following week was the DNC, during which Bush laid low and reportedly studied the report and weighed which reforms could be implemented immediately by executive order, and which would require congressional action.
• Kerry and Edwards appeared on Fox News Sunday on August 1st, when Kerry said: “I think this administration has dropped the ball on homeland security. I think they are now moving to catch up.”

Well, no kidding. You’d think as long as he’s been in government that he would realize the Federal government doesn’t exactly turn on a dime. Not to mention that making quick work of things like this would likely result in bad results, and more bureaucracy without substance.

I really did try to watch John Kerry’s speech last night at the DNC with as much objectivity as possible, while at the same time attempting to keep from hurling my dinner all over the living room.

After it was over, I couldn’t help but think he sounded the same as he always does. I don’t know that he really connected with voters the way he needed to. As some of the news pundits mentioned, he spent almost no time talking about his Senate record. It was as if he went from serving in Vietnam, to being a prosecutor, then DIRECTLY to running for President!

His statements on Iraq were vague. Just how does he think he’s going to magically get France, Germany, et. al. to start acting like allies? His “plan” is long on rhetoric, and short on the “plan” part.

Apparently we’re also going to try the Hillary Rodham Clinton approach to health care again. I can’t wait. When are Democrats (especially lawyers like John Edwards) going to realize that the real problem is with the malpractice laws? If they really wanted to control costs, they would do something meaningful in this area.

After he forced other speakers at the convention to limit anti-Bush rhetoric, he definitely turned up the hatred dial a few notches, accusing Bush of misleading America into war, and of mis-using the armed forces.

I found this article that does a nice job of contrasting what John Kerry says with his actual record. No wonder he never talks about his Senate record!

See National Review Online: Byron York on Armed Forces Radio on National Review Online.

Armed Forces Radio airs the first hour of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, along with 1200 other programs that local stations within the network can choose from. The purpose of Armed Forces Radio is “to give military men and women a representative sample of the programming they could hear at home.” It seems logical, therefore, that Rush would be included among the 1200 choices, as he has the most popular show in America. Other airings include Dr. Laura, many NPR programs, ESPN Radio, and lots of music.

The following is from the American Forces Network – Europe website:

[Quote]

Why does AFN-Europe air controversial shows?

AFN airs controversial shows because the American Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS) wants to provide Americans with the same radio and television shows they can see or hear in the United States. If the show is highly rated, AFRTS tries to procure the rights to the show.

Shows such as Tom Joyner, and Rush Limbaugh come to Europe via satellite from AFRTS at March Air Force Reserve Base, Riverside, California. AFRTS negotiates with program suppliers to get the most popular U.S. shows. If AFRTS can

France and Germany had been trying to get veto power for Iraq over any coalition military operations, a very dangerous step for this first iteration of Iraqi self-rule.

Thankfully, that did not happen, and the resolution was passed by the security council unanimously.

“The resolution details the powers and the limitations of the new interim Iraqi government that will assume power on June 30. It authorizes the U.S.-led multinational force to remain in Iraq to help ensure security but gives the Iraqi government the right to ask the force to leave at any time.”

This last part is not as bad as it sounds – the new Iraqi government has committed to keeping U.S. forces in Iraq until elections next year.

Now we’ll just have to see if this is enough involvement by the international community for the political opposition in America.

I’m not sure what can be said about this great man that hasn’t already been said a thousand times. This past Saturday was a sad but inevitable day. I only hope that this helps people remember what this country can be like.

The following is from the end of President Reagan’s farewell address on January 11, 1989, and I’ve always liked it.

The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the “shining city upon a hill.” The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we’d call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We’ve done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren’t just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

And so, good-bye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Lest anyone forget, Kerry along with all of his colleagues from the Dem party were quite vocal about telling us how dangerous Saddam Hussein was just about one year ago, and for a long time prior to that. Bill Clinton, AlGore, Kerry, you name the Dem, they were extolling the virtues of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed to the rest of the world.

There continue to be sporadic reports that the media is mis-representing what’s happening in the minds of Iraqis, as far as how they feel about Americans being there. There was an Assyrian Christian on one of the political television shows earlier this week, and he said that he was flabbergasted by the coverage of the American media, having just come over from Iraq for a brief visit.

One more thing: How many canisters or artillery shells with Sarin gas or God knows what else do we have to find to make them qualify as “weapons of mass destruction?” As far as I’m concerned, a little dab will do ya. If we had failed to act, and a SINGLE one of these weapons was to fall into the hands of terrorists, and was traced to Saddam Hussein’s regime, Dems would be eating George W. Bush for lunch. No one should doubt that, or forget it when considering the current state of affairs.