Smoking gun - er - letter:

Halfway down the middle column is written: ''Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.''

Why do I have the feeling a lot more stuff like this is going to come out about Saddam pretty soon? There's no political reason for Bush to release every piece of information that has come out of Iraq. No reason at all not to keep it and make sure it's correct, unless some reporter gets wind of it. And knowing something the Osamas and Saddams of the world don't know you know could come in handy. The opponents aren't going to believe anything the administration trots out anyway, so it's better to keep cool and release the confirmed, fully utilized information after the Democrat dwarves have had ample opportunity to make idiots of themselves. Not that they need much help. This political poker session could be one of the most artistically executed ever. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of Democrats. I just wish I trusted the Republicans to stay away from collectivist domestic policy. I know. Dream on.

I agree ...
OK, last Coulter post for now, I promise. This article in Newsmax.com does the best job I've seen yet of refuting Coulter's - and McCarthy's - critics. I still find it a little hard to believe that I now believe Joe McCarthy, when for decades I thought of him as the Antichrist. I demonstrated against the Vietnam war and for socialism, I blush to admit. I took it for granted that the HUAC and McCarthy's Senate committees were Star Chambers picking on innocent lefties, destroying lives in order to get power. I never could see, somehow, that Communist spies did harm the United States and the cause of Freedom. I mean, after all, Nixon, the other Antichrist, was on McCarthy's side. It is clear to me now, though, that the prevalence of Communists around the centers of power in the US in the late Forties did cause immense injury to our country's interests.
Just imagine if the Rosenbergs and Hiss and the like had not given atomic secrets to the Russians, because they had been stopped by people like Joe McCarthy. Just imagine if the Russians had not had atomic weapons at the time of the Korean War. The North Koreans, with their newly empowered Chinese and Russian supporters just might not have dared to cross the Thirty-Eighth parallel into South Korea. What if Truman had been able to allow - if he would have - MacArthur to use atomic weapons on the Red Army with no fear of retaliation? The Chinese would never have dared attack, since they would obviously have been told of the possibility. Then there would have been no Korean War. Tens of thousands of US soldiers would not have died, and hundreds of thousands of Korean and Chinese. Even if the nuclear standoff had only been postponed by a few years, that might have been enough time for the South Korean economy to develop to the point where it could defend itself.
But no. Thanks to the socialist traitors, a bloody stalemate was the best we could do. And the Communists discovered something about Truman. He would not push back beyond a certain point. As Coulter mentions, it's not a coincidence that the Korean armistice talks started when it was clear Eisenhower was to be President. It's also not a coincidence that the Communists started pushing again, in Laos and then Vietnam, when another Democrat, Kennedy, came into office and was succeeded by Johnson, who was pushing Socialism at home as forcefully as he was lackadaisically allowing it to gain ground abroad. Then when Nixon came into office in 1969, peace talks happened. Coincidence?
Democratic Presidents are all liberals. And they employ people like Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White and Dean Rusk and Dean Acheson and Walt Whitman Rostow - and Eugene V. (named for Eugene V. Debs) Rostow. Meaning traitors. I agree also with Coulter on this. Saddam knew Clinton wouldn't attack him for real. Perhaps the only benefit of having eight years of Clinton was that it lulled Saddam into a false sense of security. But the price for that lack of preparation was 9/11. And thousands of dead Iraqis as well.

More Coulter-mania
I'm still ticked off at the way "conservatives" like Sullivan and Reynolds and the Wall Street Journal are excoriating Ann Coulter's effective and generally true and needed comments on fifty years of liberal perfidy. The Curmudgeon (emeritus) appears to agree. Can you think of any time when "mainstream" Democrats attacked their own hatemongers, such as Michael Moore? Does Jonathan Alter apologize for Moore's lies? Does Lieberman or Daschle tut-tut about Carville's and Sidney Blumenthal's outrageous, false and stupid stereotypical attacks on President Bush?
I can't think of a single instance where a Democratic columnist or media guru has admitted that Chomsky, Said and the assorted Palestinian apologists have gone too far in criticizing Israel. I haven't heard anyone except "conservatives" criticize the various European idiots whose wacko theories about 9/11 are the toast of the "idiotarian" left. Your average Democrat just snickers in his sleeve and enjoys the spectacle of conservatives rising to the bait Moore and company throw out with no thought at all to whether it's true or civil. The notion of being civil to their ideological enemies hasn't ever existed in the liberal consciousness. Coulter should not be protected from having any purposely false statements or any outrages she may have committed pointed out - although I don't see any in her latest book. But she should not be attacked just to show the Left that Conservatives are really moderates. That's telling them that we will stop pointing out their warts when we start to become effective and noticed. That's nuts.

Update
Thank you, Mr. Horowitz! I knew the criticism of Coulter was off the mark. Maybe a wave of backlash will inspire examination of the double standard the Dem-libs have been getting away with for decades. And maybe someday we'll actually see a Democrat admit the lefties have been wrong about some other things, like, say, global warming, acid rain, the "ozone hole", Malthus, Marx, Mao and matrimony!

I'm for Coulter
I finished Ann Coulter's book TREASON the other day. It's great. I don't know why Sullivan and Mean Mr. Mustard are criticizing it so much. Why is it those on the libertarian right get all nervous and indignant when someone effectively attacks the noxious left? Coulter makes a lot of great points and obviously ticks off the Democrats and many "centrists". So what's not to like? I've been trying to get the following comment onto Mean Mr. M., but comments don't seem to be working so well.

I must disagree. Andrew Sullivan today compares Coulter to Michael Moore. As I emailed to Sullivan, these criticisms ignore the fact that Coulter is basically correct. Most liberals do hate America or, at the very least, tend to agree with America-haters more than those who support freedom. And McCarthy HAS been demonized with a half-century of lies and insults. So where's the "extremism"? Rabinowitz's column has precious few facts. It just repeats the liberal mantra, "Of course, everyone knows McCarthy was a monster". Coulter points out that what "everyone knows" might not be true. The "moderate" attack on Coulter only makes me think she must be even more right than she sounds.

I also emailed Sullivan. Just the fact that people are actually debating whether McCarthy is really a monster makes my day, week, whatever.

Not unexpected
Perhaps it's early yet, but the popularity of gay marriage in Canada is about what I thought it would be - below the radar. It never made any sense. The only problem I have with the Kay column is that it doesn't specifically enough condemn the betrayal of principle that laws permitting gay marriage represent. And for what? The civil union approach isn't any better. It still is mostly useful for horning in on government benefits meant for real families with real children, a traditional if in my view illegitimate subsidy. But why is it a surprise that few gay "couples" want to go through an embarrassing and meaningless ceremony? Given the level of promiscuity among gay men, especially, allowing the necessity of providing such a "right" borders on hallucination. I've often thought the whole gay marriage movement was just another way of attacking heterosexual marriage. The attempt to prove that traditional marriage is just a vehicle to oppress women and indoctrinate children has been a constant theme of the left for forty years now. Maybe gay marriage, though, will be the step too far that derails the entire movement. One can dream.

Misha's good tonight, in't he?
Get yer "yeah, yeah, yeah!!"'s out for the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler's clearest explanation yet of just exactly why Thatcher and Reagan should have statues in every capital of Europe. And why Michael Moore should be met everywhere he goes by the ghosts of the victims of socialism. Or at least their surviving relatives. Great comments, too.

Another straw in the wind? "May" be so.
Love to see scientists come up with yet another theory of what causes global temperature changes. I especially grok the way so many scientists use "may" when they're talking about theories that have been used to enforce idiotic governmental regulations that cost business billions of dollars and millions of jobs:

Veizer remains concerned about the possible "use and abuse" of his latest work in the bitter international debate over the Kyoto accord. As he did in 2000, he emphasized that unprecedented CO2 emissions in modern times may eventually "overtake" cosmic rays as a chief factor in climate change and perhaps even justify "pre-emptive" measures to protect the environment.

I also wonder why he finds it necessary to insert the weasel word "potentially" in this statement:

More specifically, the authors assert that the long-term "warming effect of CO2" is "potentially lower" than generally thought. They say the carbon dioxide factor would appear to have a maximum impact of 1.9 C on sea temperatures rather than the 5.5 projected in certain worst-case scenarios.

Makes you wonder what the margin of error is in these findings, why it wasn't stated and whether the variability was within it. But, as Ayn Rand says, "blank out". At least he comes out with this fairly straightforward statement:

"Atmospheric levels of CO2 are commonly assumed to be a main driver of global climate," the authors state. "Independent empirical evidence suggests that the galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) is linked to climate variability. We find that at least 66 per cent of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy."

Another oddity: these articles on "dissident" statements about climate theory both come from far-flung outposts of the Anglosphere: New Zealand and Saskatchewan. Where's Scientific American when news is breaking? Hugging its cherished lies?

It's official - the Sun did it
As far as I'm concerned, I now have all the evidence I need that the sun is responsible for whatever global warming may have happened and global cooling, too, for that matter. I was especially impressed by this titbit:

More recently, the instrument record taken from ground-based weather stations over the past 140 years show two periods of warming from 1910 to 1940 and from 1980 to 1998.

I mean, there's no way at all that carbon dioxide production was causing global warming from 1910 to 1940, then stopped causing it from 1940 to 1980, then started again. Either this guy's totally wrong or the multi-billions of dollars and mountains of blather and guilt spread around about global warming are TOTALLY USELESS!

So, take that, Chicken Little! Not, I predict, that these facts will have any effect on the Gaia-hypothesis self-loathing productivity-fearing wussies out there.

'Tis good to be the King!
The blogosphere is agog over a statement by Dick Gephardt, as reported by Misha here - and be sure not to miss the 106 and still counting comments. I haven't read all the comments - and won't - so I don't know if anyone has mentioned a possible implication of D.G.'s policy that a sitting president should be able, by executive order, to counteract anything "bad" that the Supreme Court might do. Say, didn't the Supreme Court do something all right-thinking liberals considered VERY BAD in December 2000 when they ruled that the Florida recount had to stop, therefore handing the presidency to a real grown-up man for the first time in eight years? I believe the slogan the Left use is "Seelected, not Eelected!" or something just as euphonious. So what if Gephardt had been president, which could have been possible, since he's been running for president since at least 1984 to my personal knowledge, since that's when I shook hands with him on the New Hampshire campaign trail? How would he have neutralized the evil of the evil fascist right-wing court? Of course! He could have just signed an executive order designating Gore as president! Then when Gore's eight years were up, he could just designate Hillary, if he were still alive which would be unlikely. No more need for silly elections or campaigns - they're so environmentally wasteful and we do want to save the Earth, don't we? It's in the balance, you know. And, say, what's with that two term restriction, anyway? Gephardt could just do away with that with a "stroke of the pen, law of the land, cool!" And then there's that annoying Congress nonsense. Boy, will Dick be glad to get out of that place. What a sinkhole of depravity and Republicans. It's executive order time! And, say, isn't that Monica walking across the street? Well, she does know the way over here to the White House and no one can disobey an executive order....

Looks promising
Things may be heating up in Iran. It's always hard to tell from possibly sensationalized news reports what's really going on and how much support it has throughout the country. The classic example of that is the Tien an Men Square demo in China in 1989 (was it really that long ago??), which seemed to be so overwhelming but was not supported by enough of the real people to make much of a difference. It mainly served to identify the troublemakers. Every one else was concerned about his rice bowl. I thought, however, that this last bit was especially telling:

This week's demonstrators have also called for the resignation of President Khatami, accusing him of not pushing hard enough for democratic reforms.
Khatami does not have the support of the hard-liners who control the judiciary, the security forces and other unelected bodies. But the hard-liners do not enjoy popular support, leaving the two sides of government in a stalemate.

At least the students aren't appealing to Khatami and attacking only the mullahs. They know that those who promise "democratic reforms" for years and never deliver are not their friends. Khatami is either insincere or ineffective. Either way he needs to go so the mullahs will be exposed. And now every one knows it. Controlling the security forces wasn't, in the end, enough to keep the Shah in power. And the mullahs know that, too.

Update
La lutte continue. The "worst street demonstrations since the 1979 revolution" should really be "the best demonstrations since well before the 1979 revolution." Since before Mossadegh, one hopes. And that's the real question. Say the students conquer, what kind of regime will they install? What is their vision, their ideal? The Statue of Liberty? Or something more subtle, unexpected - Bob Dylan, perhaps???

Yeah! Huh? How come?
Tony Blankley nails it in this WashTimes op-ed. I am so relieved. I now firmly believe the whole WMD thing will blow over and have zero political traction before the humidity drops below 100% in Tallahassee again, which should happen, if I'm lucky, about November 1. Hey, maybe I can use that as an excuse to stop blogging until Thanksgiving.

I hate apologies
I wish bloggers wouldn't apologize about not blogging, usually with disgusting details of their latest illness or lurid boasting about their wild weekend or honeymoon. If you don't have anything to blog about, don't blinking blog! Sure, I wish everyone in blogdom whom I read regularly would post every five minutes, but it ain't gonna happen and it's probably just as well. So go to Brazil with the housemaid for a week. Contract monkeypox and have a horrendous car accident. Just don't tell me about it as an excuse for not blogging.

Last Times story I'll ever read?
To read the inside story about the resignation of Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd, I actually went to the NY Times website. I may never do that again, without going through another site. I just don't get my first-rank news from the Times website. Their obvious bias makes it so irritating that I have no reason to go there unless someone else says they saw some good reporting there. In other words, I no longer rely on the Times to put good stories in their paper. They do some good reporting. Virginia Postrel insists that the Times-bashing has hurt some good people. But I can't trust them. So if Instapundit or Sullivan or DenBeste or Lileks or someone else I trust links to them, even Drudge, I will look at the article. But the paper has lost its primary position as not just a news source but a fount of judgment about what IS news.

What WAS he thinking?
Or was he thinking at all? Let's see. You have outstanding warrants. You're late for your plane. But at least you haven't called attention to yourself. So what do you do? Sure. Call in a bomb threat so you won't miss your plane. It's a once-every-two-weeks overseas flight, right? Nope. A shuttle. And your excuse is what? So what happens?

The man was held on outstanding, unrelated criminal charges and (is) being questioned by the FBI

You were expecting maybe flowers? Heck, why not just saunter up to the counter and ask, "Hey, has that plane I called in the bomb threat on been brought back to the gate yet? I'm ready to go now." Also, "the suspect was not immediately identified". Which makes suspicious me suspect his name has got an "al-" something in it. But that's just me.

Wolfowitz wows 'em
This is more than "interesting" (via Instapundit). It could be a world-historical moment. I've been reading Tom Paine lately. The feeling of 1778 and 1779 is not so far from what I'm feeling today.

Beware!
Al Qaeda has threatened Norway. But the descendants of Vikings are of course not worried, although they've certainly been in the appeaser camp. There is another menace which does seem to have them anxious and depressed, though. Their dogs are too fat. It's obviously Bush's fault. Somehow.

Outlived his usefulness
Maybe it's premature, but I suddenly find myself less than interested in whether W gets reelected in 2004. The policies I approve of have been implemented and locked in pretty well. Tax cuts, effective war on terrorism, spiking class war rhetoric, they're all important to me and they've all been acted on by the W folks. They can't really retreat from them now. Unfortunately, on some other issues W has sounded and acted more like a statist than some of the Democrats. These include the drug war, the "environment"{ptah!} minimum wage laws, regulation of business, welfare and corporate welfare. For the rest of his tenure, I fear that W will push the parts of the Republican program that I disagree with. My problem is that the Democrats are no better on any of these topics than the Republicans are and are worse on most. So my fallback position is to hope for gridlock, with one party pushing measures I disagree with and the other party blocking such measures only because they don't go far enough. For instance, what is the likelihood that W will try to reduce the influence of the EPA and OSHA, which are handcuffing American business? What are the chances of drug legalization? What effective political force can be seen to push effective reform of immigration laws to keep criminals and terrorists out but to let anyone who is willing to work in, with no welfare guarantees to bring in more freeloaders? The Republicans want to keep everyone out. Pat Buchanan and the labor union Democrats want to keep everyone out, too, but to protect "American" jobs, as though jobs belonged to people. Democrats want to let everyone in who will vote Democratic, but they can't be trusted to effectively keep criminals and terrorists out. Perhaps the only hope is that if, as looks likely, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate grow larger in 2004 on the coattails of a triumphal W, government spending in general can be cut back following traditional Republican fiscal principles - smaller government and a bigger private economy. But given the record under Reagan and Bush 41, I'm not going to be holding my breath. Looks like I'm not going to be voting again in 2004.

Truth from Tehran
Whoever thought that Abu Mazen, the supposed new head of the Palestinian Authority, was out from under the authority of the pig Arafat (ptah!) should read what the Iranians have to say:

"Arafat is at the top of the (Palestinian) Authority. He's the man to whom we refer, regardless of the American or Israeli view of him," Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, said in an interview with Egypt's semi-official Al-Mussawar weekly.

Did anyone really doubt this? Why is such a public statement not more widely reported? Hello, LGF?

Update
Albawaba has the report too. And it reports Abu Mazen is to meet with Hamas. To "try to convince Hamas to stop carrying out attacks against Israel." Of course. Just like Arafat would do and has done so many times in the past. Just because when they switch to Arabic they congratulate Hamas on the number of Israeli civilians they kill doesn't mean their statements in English were insincere. Does it?

Undoing Clinton
It will take at least four years to undo the damage Clinton and his fools did to US prestige and effectiveness abroad, especially on the terrorism front. Louis Freeh should know and now he is laying out just some of the evidence. Isn't there a treason indictment in here somewhere? Patience. Clinton's victims, including those of Waco, Ruby Ridge, Mogadishu, Khobar Towers, the SS Cole, 9/11/2001, can't be brought back to life, but steps can be taken to make sure nothing like his disastrous eight years happens again.

Said unsaid
Frontpagemag.com has an interesting commentary by actual professors at the University of Washington on the sad career of Edward Said, the pseudo-Palestinian comparative lit guru at Columbia who just can't stop lying. But after all, as with Michael Moore, Chomsky and the other monsters of the pomo left, it isn't the lies that count, it's the amount of money people will pay to hear you say them over and over again. I'm just amazed that professors at a US college are still allowed to think. Or students. It will be a great day when Sharon is invited to Baghdad to sign a peace treaty. Maybe Said can think up a lie or two to explain why that really won't happen and when it does happen, it didn't really happen because the intellectual elite refused to acknowledge that it happened. As for the unity of the Palestinian people against the colonialist oppressors, I think I see a straw in the wind blowing from Baghdad. And from Lebanon. Yes, I love Little Green Footballs.