So far, I've found the 9/11 hearings to be a partisan joke, but there has been at least one really interesting development that hasn't gotten the attention it deserved...

"A report compiled by the commission's staff found that senior officials in the Clinton White House said they had made it clear the CIA had a licence to kill the Saudi fugitive and not just capture him.

It quoted a former chief of the Osama bin Laden unit as saying: "We always talked about how much easier it would have been to kill him."

As expected, the Clinton people denied that, just as they've denied that Clinton was offered Bin Laden by Sudan and turned him down. But, Clinton himself has publicly admitted that is exactly what happened....

"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan.

"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Of course, this shows how ludicrous it has been for people like Richard Clarke to claim that fighting terrorism was the Clinton administration's top priority.

However, the more important lesson here is that treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem like the Clinton team did and John Kerry plans to do is a recipe for failure.

How can anyone buy into the idea that we should try to prevent future 9/11s by trying to capture terrorists without killing them in hostile nations like Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Taliban's Afghanistan? Then let's say that against all odds, we manage to slap the cuffs on a terrorist and somehow get him back to the US. Then, even though they're probably not going to be US citizens, we're supposed give them a high powered attorney and try to put them in jail even though we realistically can't reveal a lot of our intelligence sources and most of the relevant witnesses live in other countries? Keep in mind that in 1996, even after Al-Qaeda had been involved in the first WTC bombings and the Black Hawk Down incident, Bill Clinton still didn't believe we had a basis on which to hold Osama Bin Laden.

In an age where a nuclear 9/11 is not out of the question, how can we risk engaging in that sort of unworkable strategy? The last thing I want to hear after a suitcase nuke goes off in LA or DC is "Yeah, we knew where the terrorists were, but we didn't think we could make a case against them in court so we didn't take any action".

If you're familiar with the build-up to WW2, then you know that the rest of Europe knew that Germany was preparing for war long before the Nazis started swallowing up their surrounding countries. Had Europe decided to step in 1934 or even 1936 when the Germans started to remilitarize the Rhineland, the world could have been spared the worst war it has ever seen.

Churchill, then a backbencher in Britain, understood the threat of the Nazis even in 1934 and he agitated for Britain to build up its military and to basically make the weak and ineffective League of Nations into a NATO like organization that would insure peace through strength.

To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, I have posted a speech Churchill made back on 11/16/34 about the dangers Britain would face in the years ahead. Here is a particularly salient quote...

"Would the invaders consent to hear Lord Beaverbrook's exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Mr. Lloyd George? Would they agree to meet that famous South African, General Smuts, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it. I have borne responsibility for the safety of this country in grievous times. I gravely doubt it.

But even if they did, I am not so sure we should convince them, and persuade them to go back quietly home. They might say, it seems to me, "you are rich; we are poor. You seem well fed; we are hungry. You have been victorious; we have been defeated. You have valuable colonies; we have none. You have your navy; where is ours? You have had the past; let us have the future." Above all, I fear they would say, "you are weak and we are strong."

Read all of the speech here.

Rio Bravo - Newly elected Marshall Cletus Vaughn promised a "new era of understanding and peaceful coexistence" with the local desperado community after sweeping to a decisive victory in countywide elections yesterday.

"I am the law now, and as long as I am wearing this badge neither the Clanton Boys nor the Whiskey Creek Rape Gang will have the slightest fear here in Rio Bravo," vowed Vaughn. "So maybe they'll decide to mosey on up the road to Ft. Braddock or Sweetwater."

Vaughn's stunning poll win here yesterday came on the heels of a weekend spree by area desperado activists that left over 50 local residents shot in the back, raped, drug from horses, pistol-whipped, or hogtied.

The weekend mayhem ignited the wrath of the Rio Bravo Union of Timid Townfolk, who had backed Vaughn. Many laid blame for the incident on outgoing Sheriff Matt McShane and his open support of 'The Lone Ranger,' an area masked law agent.

"Iff'n McShane hadn't joined the Ranger's posse last month, them Holeshot Boys woulda had no nevermind to come inta Rio Bravo," said local drygoods merchant Walker Dunlap. "Now they done took three bolts of gingham from my store and made me dance like a plumb fool. It's time we got us a Sheriff that lets them desperado boys know that we're gonna do like they says, nice and easy-like."

Rio Bravo schoolmarm Eliza Hooper agreed, saying that "It is high time we tell the gangs that this town is saying 'no' to unilateral cowboys and 'no' to necktie parties."

"The Lone Ranger may have fired his silver bullet at Deadwood Clyde, but we are the ones who got shot," added dancehall hostess Bowleg Annie. "And also raped. And also dismembered and buried up to our necks and stampeded."

A local banker, who asked to remain anonymous, said poor conditions in McShane's jail may have provoked the desperados. "The way I hear't it, them boys only gits bacon fat an' beans," he said. "Anyways, I just don't want no more trouble."

Such sentiments were reflected in Vaughn's victory speech, in which he said he would work toward an immediate withdrawl from the Lone Ranger posse and seek an open dialogue with the rustler community.

"We would like it known throughout the county that we are not askeert to say no to the masked man, his faithful Injun companion, and and his so-called frontier justice."

Some analysts say such a break will be somewhat difficult, but for the time being Vaughn appears to enjoy the support of a broad anti-Ranger consensus, including the Rio Bravo business community.

"Believe me, I am really looking forward to the new direction of the town," said recall leader and undertaker Homer Dinsworth.

If you enjoyed this satire by David Burge, you can read more of his work at Iowahawk.

John Kerry truly has no shame. Just last night he claimed that George Bush lied about WMD in Iraq....

"If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought. Unfortunately for the president, this is not a joke."

"George Bush didn't tell us the truth about the economy, about job loss, about the true cost of his deceptive prescription drug plan, or about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. There's nothing funny about that."

So Kerry claims Bush lied about WMD, huh? Well, here's my response to that...

If you want a nice, clear, version of this graphic to use on your web page or to email to your friends, go here.

I gotta tell ya, Republicans are waaaaaay too gloomy about how the 2004 Presidential election is going. I have people at work saying "Boy, Bush is in trouble isn't he?" My father even told me it didn't look good for Bush the last time I saw him on vacation. Then today, I see a teaser article over at National Review by Kate O'Beirne (nobody likes a tease Kate) that again seems to be hitting this same morose theme.

Now sure, in January and early February, things weren't looking all that hot for the Bushies. The President's approval rating was hitting new lows as Democrats pounded W. into the ground every night on the news while Bush's own base griped about his excessive spending & his wildly unpopular immigration plan. Meanwhile, John Kerry was riding high on a wave of a positive coverage driven by his domination of the primaries. The poll numbers were ugly. A poll in Jan showed Kerry up by 8, and polls in early and mid-Feb showed Kerry up by 9 and then 12 points.

But things began to change in late Feb -- big time. Kerry locked up the nomination, gay marriage became a campaign issue, and most importantly, the Bush team kicked off their campaign in earnest. Well, almost like magic, the fractures in the conservative base healed over and the right started launching salvos at Kerry. Today, the national poll numbers lean towards Bush -- not Kerry. And the numbers are going to continue to trend that way in my opinion. Why do I say that?

1) The Dems had a couple of months of largely uninterrupted negative attacks on Bush during the primaries and while they did manage to drive his numbers down, Bush's approval ratings look to have bottomed out. I just don't see Bush's polls getting lower than they already have.

2) On the other hand, Kerry who is already LOSING in most national polls has a lot of room to fall. The average person doesn't know Kerry's record. All they know is that Kerry was in Vietnam and he's not Bush.

3) Meanwhile, the Bush team has been successful at portraying Kerry as a flip-flopping liberal who's weak on defense and plans to raise your taxes. That's mainly because Kerry IS a flip-flopping liberal who's weak on defense and plans to raise your taxes. The more that message gets out, the worse Kerry is going to do.

4) Kerry has a run a lackluster campaign so far in my opinion. In #2 I mentioned that all most people know about Kerry is that he "was in Vietnam and he's not Bush." Perhaps that's because that seems to be the core of Kerry's campaign platform. Kerry is not a charismatic man, he's not very likable, he does not excite the Democratic base (although the idea of beating Bush does fire them up), and he doesn't seem be running a very effective campaign. As I've said before, he's the liberal version of Bob Dole -- no offense meant to Bob Dole.

5) Last but not least, all the intangibles seem to be leaning Bush's way between now and the election. The number of American deaths in Iraq have dropped and we'll be handing the country over to the Iraqis this summer. The economy has been growing rapidly and although we aren't producing jobs as fast as we'd like, we have had positive job growth every month from August of 2003 on. Expect the American people to become MUCH more positive about the economy before Nov. Also, with Kerry desperately (yet unsuccessfully) undercut Bush's incredible success in the war on terrorism, expect that issue -- which is Bush's forte -- to remain at the center of the campaign.

I expect Bush to ride the war on terrorism, a federal marriage Amendment, and the economic turnaround (look for positive ads from the Bushies on this subject as soon as we have a big job growth month) to victory over John Kerry who'll be viewed as too weak, too indecisive, and too liberal to be President by November of this year. So cheer up fellas, it's looking pretty good right now...

Paris - Members of the French organization ACD (“Action Contre Democracie”) are planning massive protests against the United States on June 6, 2004, the 60th anniversary of the D-Day invasion.

“Eet ees clear that FDR and Churchill lied about ze so-called ‘Hitler Threat,’” said Jean-Pierre Le Con, chairman of ACD. “All zees talk about German weapons of mass destruction. Sheer lies by ze capitalist pigs of ze Anglo-Saxon world. American aggression actually made ze world much less safe. We were all collaborating so nicely and then ze Americans invaded our beautiful beaches at Normandy. And zis was done in violation of international law.”

In England, members of the NCAS (“Neville Chamberlain Appeasement Society”), will join their French colleagues in the protests against FDR and Churchill. “Just think how much better the world would be today if Winston Churchill had stayed the course of appeasement instead of succumbing to the siren call of American aggression,” said Basil Throttlebottom, chairman of the NCAS. “It would be a world of total peace vouchsafed by the benevolent protection of the German military. Certainly it would be a far better world than the one we’re saddled with which is based on freedom, the rule of law and government based on the consent of its citizens.”

If you enjoyed this satire by William Grim, you can read more of his work at Broken Newz.

It seems to me that everyone is asking the wrong question about Israel turning Sheik Ahmed Yassin into a bloody, metallic puddle of slurry. What I keep hearing is...

"Why did Sharon have Yassin killed?"

Given that...

1) Hamas openly tells the world that they intend kill of the Israelis
2) Hamas is going to kill as many Israelis as possible, as often as possible, and they can't be reasoned with
3) There is zero possibility of a real lasting peace breaking out anytime soon despite all the talk you hear about a "Roadmap to Peace".
3) The UN hates Israel and blatantly sides with the Palestinians
4) On the whole, Europe hates Israel and blatantly sides with the Palestinians
5) No matter what they may say publicly, the Bush administration isn't going to be upset with Israel for killing terrorists.

...I'd say the appropriate question is...

"Why not kill Yassin?"

You could add to that...

"Why not kill every terrorist that you can, including Arafat?"

I mean if peace isn't around the corner, your enemies are determined to drive you into the sea, and all of the world (except the US) is going to condemn you when do anything except lay back and die, why not just kill every terrorist you can get a bead on and let the chips fall where they may?

Or put another way...

"Two Jews who were being stood against a wall by a Nazi execution squad. Allowed a few last words, the first Jew curses his killers, telling them they will lose the war and roast in Hell and all their crimes will be avenged and . . . then he hears the other Jew whispering in his ear: Shush! You'll make them mad."

Heather Mac Donald is not a household name in conservative circles, but she should be. I'm a huge fan of her detailed, insightful, and statistic laden work that directly challenges liberals myths about everything from illegal immigration, to welfare, to crime. That's why I got together with Ms. Mac Donald for an interview via email. I hope you'll find what she had to say as fascinating as I did....(Cont)

I absolutely loathe taking a day away from RWN for any reason except for my frequent vacations, but unfortunately, I'm not going to be doing any posts today. I have gotten incredibly far behind in doing a number of little maintenance related things for the page.

In fact, if RWN was a house, the grass would be waist high, the roof would have a tree on top of it, and there would be a rabbit boiling on the stove with a note written in blood that said "no one dumps me" beside of it.

So today, I'm getting some things that desperately need to be done for the page completed. I was going to hold out and take a three day week-end, but heck, there's no time like the present right?

If it's any consolation to you, RWN's valued reader, I have some really cool stuff coming up over the next week or so that I think you're going to really like. So until Thursday, check out the daily news & take a look at RWN's advertisers....

Banners
---------
PABAAH!
Right Wing Nut
Right Wing Stuff
Vitamin USA

Blogads
---------
The Case Against Capital
A Knight's Code Of Business
Spirit Of America

Buttons
---------
Light Cavalry
Midnight Yell
Neowhig 2004

Text Ads
----------
Amaravati: Abode Of Amritas
Blog House
Cooper For President
Democrats Give Conservatives Indigestion
National Security Blog
The Patriot Blog!
The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
Sociopathocracy
The Southern California Law Blog
The Steel Cage

See you on Thursday everybody!

I thought it might be instructive to compare how we in America treat people who protect their homes compared to how the Brits protect burglars who rob people's homes.

Here's story #1 from "happy burglar land," also known as Britain...

"A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed for eight years today.

He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment."

Yes, you're reading that right. A man defending his life & his home with a sword from 4 burglars armed with a gun was sent to jail. As hard as that is to believe, it's really not a parody. I promise.

On the other hand, here's how we handled a similar situation in America...

"Springfield police said a woman who shot and killed an intruder will not face any charges. However, they said the dead man's accomplice will be charged with his death.

...Investigators said Tanksley was charged in connection with the death because the shooting occurred during the commission of a felony."

Isn't that a better solution? The real victim, the homeowner, goes free while one criminal dies and the other crook takes the rap for his partner's death. It works for me.

Too bad it doesn't work that way in Britain where Carl Lindsay, an innocent victim, is going to jail for defending his life & home from a group of thugs. The Brits should be praising Lindsay, not sending him to the slammer...

Whenever you talk about illegal immigration there are always people on the right who talk about the fantastic benefits of all that cheap labor & people on the left who want to pretend that no one could possibly have any objection to illegals other than out and out racism. But when illegals break the law to enter our country they bring a whole host of problems with them, many of which self-proclaimed lefty Marty Nemko covers in an excellent column. Here are a few of the high spots...

-- "The number of illegal immigrants in the US has more than doubled in the past decade to at least 9,000,000, the population of Massachusetts and Connecticut combined, and the rate is accelerating."

-- "The Center for Immigration Studies has calculated that illegals have already cost American workers $133 billion in salary cuts and job losses. According to a study by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, illegal immigration combined with the rampant offshoring of US jobs promises to significantly shrink the middle and working class, forcing ever more people into poverty."

-- "Bush claims that Guest Workers do work that legal Americans won't. If that were true, then in the 35 states with few illegals (87 percent of illegals reside in just 15 states), lawns wouldn't get mowed, hotel rooms wouldn't get cleaned, buildings wouldn't get built, and crops wouldn't get picked. In those states, employers simply have to pay a living wage and provide decent working conditions to get people to do that work."

-- "...US law requires that all illegals receive free public education K-12. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that this costs $7.4 billion dollars each year."

-- "The birthrate among illegals is double that of legal US residents. The Pew Hispanic Center calculates that within seven years, the children of immigrants, legal and illegal, will account for one in nine school-age children in the US. The Urban Institute estimates that already, 15% of all school children in California are illegals, many of whom speak little English. These students are usually mainstreamed in classes with native English speakers. This means that teachers must slow down instruction, denying native English speakers their right to an appropriate-level education."

-- "...Illegal immigrants, coming from poor countries, have great health care needs. And in addition to common diseases, illegals bring challenges not normally faced in the US, for example, 7,000 new cases of leprosy in the past three years came in from Mexico, India, and Brazil, 16,000 new cases of multiple-drug-resistant, incurable, and communicable(!) tuberculosis. The Centers for Disease Control reports that illegal immigrants account for over 65 percent of communicable diseases (TB, hepatitis, leprosy, AIDS, etc.,) in the US. Immigration officials are supposed to screen out immigrants who are carrying diseases, but there is no health screening for illegal immigrants."

-- "The burden of providing health care to illegals extends beyond disease and saving crime victims. For example, because of illegals' high birthrate, in Colorado, which has a mere (?) 100,000 illegal immigrants, taxpayers in 2003 alone paid for 6,000 illegals to have their babies. That's 40% of the births Medicaid paid for in the state. To get immediate care, the illegal only must say "I am undocumented."

-- "The Washington Times reported that dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California have either closed their doors or face bankruptcy because of losses caused by uncompensated care given to illegal immigrants."

-- "Can we ask legal residents to be honest — for example, to pay their income taxes — while, per the Guest Worker program, we reward lawbreaking illegals with legal status, an array of services for themselves and their families, plus full US citizenship for all subsequent offspring? In officially welcoming millions of acknowledged at-least two-time lawbreakers into the US, we would exacerbate America's already declining honesty."

-- "An article in City Journal reports, "In Los Angeles, up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal immigrants. A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County."

-- "One in seven inmates in California state prisons are illegal immigrants, serving time for crimes other than being in the US illegally. California taxpayers alone spend $500 million a year on incarcerating illegals."

-- "Even an illegal alien who has committed murder rarely gets deported! According to statistics from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 80,000 illegals who have served prison time for felonies including murder, rape, drug smuggling, and armed robberies, are roaming our streets. This is frightening indeed because, according to Bureau of Justice statistics, within three years of prison release, 62% commit another crime."

-- "Peyton Knight, Director of Legislative Affairs for the American Policy Center, a Virginia think tank, writes, "At a time when America is under attack by Islamist holy warriors, the Census Bureau estimates that as many as 115,000 illegal immigrants from Middle Eastern countries are living in the United States."

-- "According to US Census data, immigrants are 75% more likely to use food stamps, medical benefits, and housing assistance at a cost of $68 billion per year. (Compare this with the estimated $84 billion one-time cost of the war in Iraq.)"

-- "(W)hile American-born workers spend most or all of their earnings here in the US, creating more jobs and in turn, more tax revenues, illegals send much of their earnings back to relatives in their native country. For example, according to a study by the Pew Hispanic Center and Inter-American Development Bank, Latino immigrants in 2002, despite the soft economy, sent a record $23 billion to relatives and others in their home countries."

-- "Co-founder of MALDEF, Mario Obledo, to whom President Clinton awarded the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, boasted, "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave." He added: "Every constitutional office in California is going to be held by Hispanics in the next 20 years." Jose Pescador Osuna, former Mexican Consul General in Los Angeles, said, "Even though I'm saying this part serious and part joking, I believe we are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California." Past Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, in 1997, speaking before the national council of La Raza, was not half-joking when he said: "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important - a very important - part of this." And Mexico's current president, Vicente Fox has marched La Reconquista forward by having convinced President Bush to provide legal status for millions of illegals."

Illegal aliens may be good for businesses that want cheap labor and Democrats who want to want to eventually get their votes, but they're bad for America...

Do you want to know what the problem with Europe's appeasement and moral equivalence is folks? Well, I can explain it to you in two pictures.

Judging by the shrillness of their protestations, the Europeans have less of a problem with this being done to a bus full of innocent Israelis on their way home from work, school, & shopping...

....than they do with this being done to the genocidal psychopath who runs the group that committed the bus bombing shown above (among hundreds of other attacks).

If you can't figure why one of these attacks is good and why the other one is bad, then in my opinion you've got a broken moral compass. However, if like most Europeans, you can figure it out, but just don't want to offend the people who consider Sheik Ahmed Yassin a hero because he murdered Jews for a living, then you've got no guts.

Governments around the world have condemned the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

Yassin, a "frail quadriplegic who could barely see", was an activist credited as being the "spritual leader" of Hamas. Hamas is an humanitarian organization which "has established charitable funds to establish schools, clinics and hospitals that provide free services to families in distress."

"The assassination of Sheik Yassin threatens to end decades of peace, tranquility, and goodwill between the Palestenians and Israelis," said German Foreign Minister Joska Fischer. "This tragedy could spell the end of this blissful harmony."

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (who is a man) weighed in on the assassination. "Sacrebleu! The Palestenians are a peaceful people. But now, surely this assault on their spiritual leader will result in violence."

De Villepin added, "Should this violence spill over into Europe, the French stand ready to surrender at once."

"The US condemns this attack on the handi-capable," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. "Now no quadriplegic can feel safe, even in the safety of their own compound. I am particularly concerned for the safety of other high-profile quadriplegics such as Christopher Reeve and Stephen Hawking."

Boucher added, "Attempting to reduce terrorism by removing the leadership is a failed strategy that cannot possibly work. Also, by the way, the bounty on Osama has been raised to a cool $50 mil."

If you enjoyed this satire by Rip Rowan, you can read more of his work at The Skeptician.

As most of you probably already heard, Israel turned wheelchair bound Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin into a pile of twisted wreckage & red pulp with a missile last night and I could not approve more strongly of what they did...well scratch that, had they put a few missiles into Arafat's compound so that Yassin would have someone to chat with in hell, that would have been an improvement.

Yassin was the founder & leader of a group that has murdered hundreds of Israelis & has killed Americans as well. Hamas has openly proclaimed that their goal is not living in peace with Israel, but genocide. So who cares if Hamas is now saying they are going to open up the "gates of hell" over this attack? That's what they try to do every day of the week, it's their raison d'etre. When you're dealing with people who have that sort of mentality, the question isn't "should you kill them at every opportunity," it's "why shouldn't you kill them at every opportunity"?

But of course, the Europeans have an answer to that questions...

"The European Union rounded angrily on Israel on Monday for killing Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, warning that his assassination was "very bad news" for the Middle East peace process.

"This is very, very bad news for the peace process," he added."

Look, there is no "peace process". There cannot be "political negotiations" or a "peace process" which features one side that considers genocide to be a condition of peace. You don't make peace with people like Yassin, Abu Abbas, or Yassir Arafat. You kill them or they kill you and "international law" which is an irrelevant joke under the best of circumstances doesn't have anything to do with it. You can talk about "violations of international law" all day long, but since no one is going to enforce it, it's just as meaningless as those tags on your mattress that say "do not remove under penalty of law".

So since there is no "peace process" to speak of, "international law" means nothing, & terrorist groups like Hamas & Islamic Jihad intend to kill as many Israelis as possible no matter what happens, Israel should not hesitate to kill every Palestinian terrorist they can, Arafat included. Nobody with half a brain in the US is crying any tears over Al-Qaeda terrorists who get gunned down or blown away with hellfire missiles, and there's not a dime's worth of difference between any member of Hamas or Al-Qaeda. The more of them that get locked up or preferably killed, the safer civilization is....

A new book by Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism coordinator for the Bush administration, charges that the president was so obsessed with Saddam Hussein that he delayed invading Iraq for 19 months after the 9/11 terror attacks "just so he could let his hatred of Saddam simmer in his mind."

Mr. Clarke told CBS reporter Leslie Stahl that, from the beginning, the Bush administration didn't take the al Qaeda threat seriously and was focused on attacking Iraq.

"The 9/11 attacks by al Qaeda were such an utter surprise to [National Security Advisor] Rice and [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld, that it took them almost a month to retaliate against the Taliban," said Mr. Clarke. "By contrast, Rumsfeld started planning to hit Saddam from the moment he took office in January 2001. Sure enough, only 26 months after that he unleashed a lightning strike on Iraq. He would have launched the attack sooner if Bush hadn't been so obsessed with Saddam that he couldn't see straight."

The former official said even the war against the Taliban was part of the president's obsession with Saddam Hussein.

"Bush foolishly believed that there was a link between al Qaeda and Iraq," Mr. Clarke said. "So, in order to bring down Saddam Hussein, he first attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan in October 2001, because they harbored al Qaeda. Bush thought that if the Taliban fell, Saddam would soon follow. It's clear that the Rumsfeld and Rice have thought about nothing but Iraq for more than three years now."

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

I have to give a big RWN salute to the college Republicans at Roger Williams University for helping to expose Affirmative Action for what it is -- a vile, discriminatory, practice that is every bit as immoral as Jim Crow laws were even if it does nowhere near the same amount of damage. Here's what they did and a little sample of the furor it caused...

"On the sleepy coastal campus of Roger Williams University, a small liberal arts school unaccustomed to student activism, the College Republicans are reveling in the debate they've kicked up by offering a scholarship for whites only.

His commission on civil discourse includes faculty and student members and has already decided to organize a debate team and create a journal. "This has caused me to redouble our efforts to make the campus open," Nirschel said."

Like those race based cookie sales that have sprung up at colleges around America, this scholarship exposes the Affirmative Action for sham that it is. Too often today, we've allowed race hustling, poverty, pimps like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, & Kweisi Mfume to define "fighting for Civil Rights" as discriminating against people based on race. We should have stood up against that practice as a society and said that it was wrong a long time ago.

For example, today in 2004, how in the world can we justify telling a dirt poor white kid without a racist bone in his body that he's not allowed to compete with Michael Jordan's son for a scholarship because his skin is the wrong color? How do you look somebody in the eye who was born in 1982 and tell him that he can't have a job he's the best qualified applicant for just because he's white?

Affirmative Action is an ugly product of a bygone era that should have no place in 21st century America. Race based discrimination is wrong no matter what color it's aimed at and it's great that the college Republicans up at Roger Williams University found such a creative way to get that message across.

Well folks, once again this week-end the kooky leftists pulled their giant puppet heads & "No blood for oil" signs out of the closet and take to the streets for another futile anti-war protest. Little Green Footballs reader Zombie went to the S.F. anti-war rally this week-end and got some nifty snaps of the left at their worst that you're not going to see in the Washington Post or the New York Times.

For example, just take a look at this one....

Nice sentiment for a peace rally huh? Hey, is it OK for us to say he isn't patriotic or are we just supposed to pretend he's part of the loyal opposition?

Here's another poster along the same lines...

I guess he's welcome among all the gentle, "pro-American" hippies, huh?

This sign may shock you if you're not all that familiar with what's going on in South Korea right now...

There are lot of young people in South Korea who feel exactly the way the little girl carrying that sign does. I wonder if she knows that during the Korean war, girls, just like the one carrying that sign, were among the people herded towards South Korean & American positions by the North Koreans who used them as human shields & bullet catchers. Think that poofy haired psycho Kim Jung-Il would hesitate to do the same thing or worse today if he thought it was to his advantage? Then you're a fool.

Last but not least, there's this....

I'm sure Osama Bin Laden would share those sentiments.

I'd like to see some of these placards that are being carried around by some of these "brave dissenters" show up in the mainstream media sometime. Normally, if there's any hint of controversy, the media just CAN'T wait to slap it on the front page. But when it comes to these anti-war rallies, for the most part it's see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The American people deserve to see what goes on at these rallies and not just the sanitized version the liberal media let's them see...