A Flip, A Flop, A Fib and A Dodge - Kerry gets a 9.5, a 9.9... and from the Al-Qaeda judge - a perfect 10!
Topic: Kerry=Chimp with an M-16?
We knew John Kerry had range, but WOW, get this!

Q. "If you are elected, given Paul Bremer's remarks, and deteriorating conditions as you have judged them, would you be prepared to commit more troops."

The question could have been phrased more simply, but the reporter deserves credit for trying to limit the "wiggle room" in the question.

A. "I will do what the generals believe we need to do without having any chilling effect, as the president put in place by firing General Shinseki, and I'll have to wait until January 20th."

Note: We don't HAVE members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who go around thinking "The job really requires 200,000 troops, but the President will fire me if I say so." The gentlemen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff got where they are by ignoring the temptation to think that way.

Those in major line commands who succumb to the temptation to give false answers they think their bosses would like are culled out by the truth-tropic nature of the military, as such lies are exposed when they conflict with the inflexible nature of time, space and resources available to each mission.


Kerry, continued:

"I don't know what I am going to find on January 20th, the way the president is going. If the president just does more of the same every day, and it continues to deteriorate,"

This is Kerry Classic, the way HE went on, and on, after coming home from the Navy in the 1970s.

Tell any lie, exaggerate any problem, spoil morale and do anything you can to destroy our troops' performance in the field, run that butcher's bill up sky-high, as long as it helps you along in your political career.


" ...I may be handed Lebanon, figuratively speaking."

No, if (God forbid) Kerry winds up in the White House with another Lebanon, he won't have been "handed" it - Kerry will have it because he worked so hard to GET it by undermining the President in time of war to make it so... just like last time in Southeast Asia.


"Now, I just don't know."

First and only true statement of the interview.


"I can't tell you. What I'll tell you is, I have a plan."

Masterful choice of words. "What he'll tell us is, he has a plan," in his bags, next to the deeds to some dry land in the Everglades he'd like us to look at later.


"I have laid out my plan to America, and I know that my plan has a better chance of working."

Wait a minute, there! Here's Kerry just a minute ago (imagine tape rewinding noise):

"I don't know what I am going to find on January 20th, the way the president is going. If the president just does more of the same every day, and it continues to deteriorate, now, I just don't know. I can't tell you."

But here he is, anyway, telling us about the plan for a situation he doesn't know anything about, but which will work better than what's being done now.

And which must have been laid out when America was otherwise busy.


"And in the next days I am going to say more about exactly how we are going to do what has been available to this Administration that it has chosen not to do."

Like sending the U.S. Army's 10th (Mountain) Infantry Division into the unmapped rat holes of Tora Bora to be slaughtered as Edwards said he and Kerry would have done in HIS debate?

Who's shaky on the concept of force protection now?


"But I will make certain that our troops are protected."

How? Your boy Edwards just told us the very opposite thing in the debate, that if you and he had been calling the shots in Afghanistan, you would have sent the 10th (Mountain) Division in despite all manner of logistics problems and despite the lack of any good intel about mines, ambush alleys and other surprises waiting in those holes at Tora Bora.

Give us details about this "protection" you say you'll provide, and produce military officers who aren't part of your campaign, no more Bill Burketts, to how us how this "protection" of yours will work in the real world.


"I will hunt down and kill the terrorists,"

No, you won't. A bunch of brave, underpaid men who don't have personal Gulfstream V jet aircraft and multi-million dollar dowries will do that. Let's at least get that right.

" ...and I will make sure that we are successful,"

Please show us how that works, Sparky!

" ...and I know exactly what I am going to do and how to do it."

Kerry, you told us at the beginning of this press conference that you didn't know WHAT you were going to have to do, because Bush was supposedly leaving you such a mess.

John Forbes Kerry, you've done it again - flip-flopped AND outright lied, all in the space of a single press conference.
__

And despite all your attacks on the President's war performance and your hand-waving about that "plan" of yours which we haven't seen and seems to change with each development in the war the way you describe it, you didn't answer the one question you were asked - "would you be prepared to commit more troops."

Flip, flop, fib and dodge the original question - Archetypal John Kerry.

Next chapter:

Lyndon Baines Kerry teaches us a new word - "Escalation!" (Or, "don't tick off a blustering, insecure Democratic President with a raging need to control others unless you want 500,000 guests in your country... ")

Gwen Ifill, incompetent? I don't knowww.......
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: Master debating
Before concluding, as Jonathan V. Last did on the Weekly Standard Web page, that Gwen Ifill was incompetent to discharge the duties of moderator in the debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards, we need to, as the doctors say, rule out all the other possible causes for the phenomenon:

1 Stage Fright? Please note that Gwen Ifill's day job is with PBS. More people probably watched her Tuesday than had ever seen her on television before. Period.

Ifill's most famous weekly venue, "Washington Week," is going to have to adopt the "jello wrestling for its female panelists" format before its audience expands much beyond the people who watch because their jobs or homework assignments require it of them;

2 Hero Worship? Perhaps it was close proximity to one of her REAL bosses (hint - the big player in the DNC, not Mr. Cheney) for so long that caused her to insist that Edwards take the lead on two questions in a row, OVER HIS OBJECTIONS.

Edwards submitted to Ifill's magisterial authority and led out of turn, anyway - creating an undocumented "Madam Moderator Says" exception to the debate rules from which Bush is unlikely to benefit unless a last-minute change in the moderator rota is made in favor of Karen Hughes or Mary Matalin;

3 Existential Angst? Could it be that, brimming over with inner anger over having to pretend that the Republicans should have an equal right to make their points in HER debate, Gwen Ifill decided to do a little liberal existentialist street theater late in the program, showing the emptiness of the charade she, Edwards and Cheney were doomed to play out?

Probably not, but the Nation might decide to run with that theory for an editorial. Fellas, send the check to....

4 Dead Presidents? This could explaim Jim Lehrer's decision to disgrace himself in front of the nation, as well, and should be carefully considered.

Among the horrible things people will do for money, acting dazed and confused while incidentally giving one candidate for national office in a debate a crucial advantage isn't very demeaning or degrading at all.

In fact, it only metaphorically qualifies as "prostitution"....

All of these differential diagnoses, plus results of a "One's Own Buttocks - A Hole in the Ground Difference Perception Test" should be considered before Gwen Ifill should be unreservedly considered incompetent to moderate a vice-presidential debate.

If only Tim Matheson were available to reprise his deathless role as 'Otter' (during the college honor board trial) in Animal House at this point, he could iron this whole mess out for us right away.

"It isn't Gwen Ifill we're talking about here, it's the debate rules, isn't it? And we've seen those rules get bent here before, haven't we? (winks at us, the stern-faced panel of outraged non-Kerry supporters)

"That these naked violations of the debate rules could happen on national TV, on college campuses, says something about our broadcast and educational systems. Well, I'm not going to stand here and listen while you people talk trash about... the United States of America!"

(Kerry, Edwards, Gwen Ifill, Jim Lehrer, Terry McAuliffe, James Carville and all the dupes of the Kerry campaign march out of the lecture hall while humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic at this point.)

Sleazy Stan Matsunaka Crouches Behind Orphans and Foster Kids to Shoot at Marilyn Musgrave
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Dumb campaign ads STINK
Scene: An American soldier takes up a position in a smoldering nightime Iraqi landscape, firing back at an unseen enemy.

As a woman in the same kind of pink outfit Reese Witherspoon made notorious in "Legally Blonde 2" sneaks up on the soldier and picks his pocket, an indignant, nasal announcer denounces what he says is Marilyn Musgrave's voting record for American soldiers' benefits.

The source of the ad is identified as "Colorado Families First" in print on screen.
____

There really is an outfit here in Denver, Colorado named "Families First," which:
(a) has nothing to do with Stan Matsunaka, the Democratic or Republican parties, Marilyn Musgrave, or politics in general;
(b) is an extremely valuable resource caring for kids with problematic family situations;
(c) thanks to the sleazy maneuvering of the Democrats, now is losing vital support here in Denver as a consequence of a deceptively-named front organization and massive voter reaction to the attack ad.

Gee, thanks, Democrats. The kids who won't be getting help because of your BS ad really appreciate your efforts on their behalf.

In what's nearly an anticlimax, the attack ad's figures are either outright lies or misleading in the extreme.
__

This is 527 bull crap at its worst.

Stan Matsunaka, Congresswoman Musgrave's opponent is the current election cycle, gets to disavow the work of these horrible people who cruelly and stereotypically attacked his opponent, spending a LOT of money to for ads whose only purpose is to help Matsunaka get elected.

It'd almost be worth going to Hell, just to see all the Democrat campaign strategists turning slowly on spits over the eternal fires there.

Not that GOP strategists are innocent in these matters, but the Democratic National Committee has fine-tuned the art of lying in 15 and 30-second advertising spots, not to mention manipulating Congress to repeal the Constitutional right to free speech when it might be better funded by the political opposition.

Hey, union guys and college students - hope you like what people are doing with the money picked from your pockets by Democratic Party front organizations.

Cheney kills Edwards on issues; Edwards channels Bill Clinton; Gwen Ifill shills for DNC
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: Master debating
This was a much more satisfying debate to watch than Bush-Kerry I.

It was apparent from the outset that Dick Cheney had brought the old golf shoes and was going to do the lambada all over John Edwards. And, except for a few slow spots early on, he did.

Hugh Hewitt and his affiliated bloggers cover this better than I intend to. Click in the link above if you want a thorough analysis.

I just wanted to share one moment - when the Vice-President went over John "Senator Gone" Edwards' record of non-feasance in his current job, then revealed that in four yeats of presiding over the Senate (which is one of the parts of the veep's job) he had NEVER met John Edwards until the debate tonight.

WHOOSH - the wind went right out of John Edwards' sails. Edwards was reduced to rattling a short list of Cheney's alleged misdeeds - and minor ones they were, mainly votes which betrayed Cheney's indifference to political correctness (big news flash, that!).

Did you know Cheney voted AGAINST a resolution demanding the release of Nelson Mandela? Wow!

This stuff wasn't red meat - it barely qualified as old beef jerky. There really IS nothing bad in the DNC file cabinet on Cheney except for the perennial crap - nothing at all true or significant - about Halliburton.

Do Edwards or his writers really think this material is going to make us take up lit torches and march on the Vice-President's Residence? Is their cupboard really that bare? If so, Bush-Cheney may be on their way to an electoral vote landslide if nothing else.

Not even "moderator" Gwen Ifill (we understand that Bill Moyers had prior committments) helping her friends in the DNC out with that question about "Cleveland, the Poor City" is going to give them much traction in Ohio - a crucial state Kerry had better win, but which looks to be turning Republican Red as you read this. If Doogie Kucinich, Boy Mayor, couldn't use Democrat Magic to turn Cleveland into Grosse Pointe while he ran the place, well....

But Edwards' delivery of the litany of Dick Cheney, Prince of Insufficient Light, Spawn of Heck made me wish I'd had a tape in the VCR. Over the top, fake-indignant trial lawyer histrionics contending (unconsciously, I think) with what I can only describe as the Bill Clinton-Elmer Fudd Wheeze.

It was great! Edwards was out-Darrell Hammonding Darrell Hammond... it wsa the quintessence of every "Good Bill" Bill Clinton impression I've ever heard. It is the most eerie thing I've ever seen!

Under stress John Edwards CHANNELS Bill Clinton.

Too bad the poor bastard can't channel somebody worthwhile, like Zell Miller or Russell Long.

Folks, we have a winner!
"...it's five-o-clock in the afternoon, time for the answer to today's Trivia Stumper! Meryl Basingstoke got BOTH answers to today's Stumper...

'Name a American military commander who became disillusioned after early success and actively spoke out against the United States later on... '

and yes, Meryl, you got them both right,

'Benedict Arnold AND John Kerry'!

If you'll hang on during our commercial break, we'll arrange delivery of your handsome prize, a fine New England-style Turn Coat Rack!"

Kerry's Kampf, or Will a Kerry inauguration be
Topic: War Criminal Candidates

The Court Martial of John Forbes Kerry
Mood:  incredulous
Topic: Kerry's Lies and Spin
There are all the charges John Kerry should have had to face from his Vietnam years, when grunts without Kerry's family money and political connections were being jacked up for charges ranging from smuggling in empty rocket launcher tubes as war souvenirs (you can't reload an empty M-72 LAWS rocket launcher unless you have heavy connections with the people who make them - in which case, you can get brand-new ones) to some of the same atrocities Kerry admitted to before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.

I like to call this "The Court Martial of John Forbes Kerry" (in homage to "The Court Martial of George Armstrong Custer")

While as a serving member of Congress, Senator Kerry's person is immune from arrest while Congress is in session; his recall to active duty to stand before an Article 32 hearing to determine whether a court-martial on the following specifications should be convened is therefore probably unlikely.

Unlike the cast of JAG, I don't even play a military lawyer on TV (though I did listen to someone from Air Force JAG talk to my AFROTC class for an hour in 1976), so I can't speak authoritatively, but I understand that Senator Kerry would have to be impeached or lose his Senate seat in some other way (such as a drastic increase in Massachusetts voters' IQ come his next election) before anything judicial or court-martial-like happened to him.

However, it's interesting to ponder just how many ways Kerry and those who served with him say that he screwed the pooch, and what sort of trouble he'd be in if he did what he and others said he did, and was found guilty of it all.

The provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice pertinent to the conduct in which Lt.(jg) John Forbes Kerry, USN has been accused of committing (my notes explaining why I think Kerry ought to be investigated for violating each provision of the UCMJ are given in italics):

SUBCHAPTER X. PUNITIVE ARTICLES

Section 910. ART 110. IMPROPER HAZARDING OF VESSEL

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who willfully and wrongfully hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel of the armed forces shall suffer death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who negligently hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel of the armed forces shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(John Kerry has admitted on several occasions, and this has been confirmed by no less an authority than former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, to beaching his Swift Boat against enemy-held positions, needlessly exposing his men and innocent civilians - some of whom died as a result - to enemy fire.

Kerry's demeanor on these occasions, according to witnesses, appears to have reflected intent on repeated occasions to "willfully hazard or suffer to be hazarded" his vessel - and innocent people died because of his depraved indifference to their welfare.

Admiral Zumwalt might have saved us all a lot of trouble at this point - instead of pinning a Silver Star on Kerry, he could have jumped on the chance to convene a summary court, find him guilty of Improper Hazarding and execute him right then and there.

But in fairness to the Admiral, who knew that Lt.(jg) Kerry was going to grow up to imperil the freedom of millions, first as a lobbyist for Southeast Asian Communism, then as a political hack, a supporter of two-bit dictators like Daniel Ortega, and a dedicated, tireless foe of American military preparedness?)

Section 926. ART. 126. ARSON

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who willfully and maliciously burns or sets on fire an inhabited dwelling, or any other structure, movable or immovable, wherein to the knowledge of the offender there is at the time a human being, is guilty of aggravated arson and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who willfully and maliciously burns or sets fire to the property of another, except as provided in subsection (a), is guilty of simple arson and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(John Kerry testified to having committed acts of arson while serving as an officer in the United States Navy before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.)

Section 907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS

Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(Several witnesses have alleged that John Kerry made false statements regarding combat or other action, including statements representing non-combat and self-inflicted injuries as injuries received in combat, or misrepresenting noncombat actions as combat actions in order to receive decorations for valor)

Section 928. ART. 128. ASSAULT

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do bodily harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who--

(1)commits an assault with a dangerous weapon or other means or force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm; or

(2) commits an assault and intentionally inflicts grievous bodily harm with or without a weapon; is guilty of aggravated assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(John Kerry testified to having committed acts of assault while serving as an officer in the United States Navy before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.)

Section 918. ART. 118. MURDER

Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he--

(1) has a premeditated design to kill;

(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;

(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or

(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson; is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

Section 919. ART. 119. MANSLAUGHTER

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who, with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation is guilty of voluntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, without an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being--

(1) by culpable negligence; or

(2) while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense, other than those named in clause (4) of section 918 of this title (article 118), directly affecting the person; is guilty of involuntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(John Kerry testified to having killed noncombatant persons protected by the Geneva Convention while serving as an officer in the United States Navy before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Whether, if he were found guilty of the acts he claims to have committed, the act or acts he admitted to would constitute murder or manslaughter, and which degreee of manslaughter (if applicable) is properly a matter for the court-martial panel to determine.

The deaths resulting from Kerry's Improper Hazarding of the vessel under his command might also be actionable as manslaughter.)

Section 878. ART. 78. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT

Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(John Kerry testified to possessing knowledge regarding other servicemen's violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including acts of assault, murder, rape and arson directed at noncombatant persons protected under the Geneva Conventions, while serving as an officer in the United States Navy before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Kerry's failure to report such acts to competent military authority in a timely manner could be construed as assisting or attempting to assist them to avoid being arrested, tried or punished for such violations.)

Section 915. ART 115. MALINGERING

Any person subject to this chapter who for the purpose of avoiding work, duty, or service--

(1) feigns illness, physical disablement, mental lapse or derangement; or
(2) intentionally inflects self-injury; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(the manner in which John Kerry sustained two injuries could reasonably be considered self-inflicted if the testimony of other officers, including Kerry's commander during his training period, is correct.

Kerry is alleged to have attempted to misrepresent the first such injury to his training base commander as a combat wound, despite other crewmen's denial that combat occurred when Kerry was injured, and despite the evidence that the only weapon fired which could have caused the wound to which Kerry referred was the one fired at a river bank by Kerry himself.

After Kerry's commander refused to endorse his application for a Purple Heart for the wound in question, Kerry appears to have obtained the medal by means unknown to his commanding officer at the time the wound was sustained.

The second wound considered under this specification consisted of a bruise to Kerry's buttocks and lodging of rice grains in Kerry's skin after he (according to others who were present) threw a hand grenade in a cache of rice.

Again, according to others who were present, this was not done in combat. It is open to conjecture whether Kerry knowingly inflicted this injury on himself, but he claimed that it occurred in combat and was successfully awarded the Purple Heart on that basis.

The two injuries in question are alleged by other officers not to have occurred in combat, resulted from Kerry's use of antipersonnel grenades outside of combat and not according to doctrine for employment of these devices, and were alleged to have been fraudulently reported as combat injories - with the ultimate result that Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam was shortened from the usual twelve months to four months.

Again, if the evidence supports these statements, at least one charge of malingering could be brought against Kerry)

Section 880. ART. 80. ATTEMPTS

(a) An act, done with specific intent to commit an offense under this chapter, amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts to commit any offense punishable by this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, unless otherwise specifically prescribed.

(c) Any person subject to this chapter may be convicted of an attempt to commit an offense although it appears on the trial that the offense was consummated.

(for trying to violate the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which were mentioned in the allegations made against Kerry and to which he testified having committed while serving as an officer in the United States Navy before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; this article applies even though the attempt was successful and resulted in guilt of another offense under the UCMJ.)

Section 933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN

Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(self-explanatory)

Section 934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

(self-explanatory)

NOTE: recycled from an earlier post on this blog. Since I write everything here, that's OK.

Democrats' WMD Specialist Matthew Meselson gets Lasker Prize... for 20 Years of Not Finding Soviet WMD
Topic: ...Those Who Will Not See
Dr. Matthew Meselson, co-architect of the Biological Weapons Protocol under which the United States and United Kingdom disarmed themselves of biological weapons and the Soviet Union said they would too, but instead embarked on a multi-billion-dollar biological weapons development and manufacturing effort, was awarded this year's Lasker Prize for Special Achievement in Medical Science for his work both in molecular biology and public policy.

But as a talking head for John Kerry and other anti-Reagan Democrats, Matthew Meselson vehemently denied that the Soviets were violating the Biological Weapons protocol:
- after the release of inhalational anthrax from the Biopreparat anthrax plant at Sverdlovsk in 1978, an event of which British Intelligence had good evidence, and which Meselson dismissed as an outbreak of anthrax in black-market beef in the vicinity until Biopreparat's existence was revealed in the 1990s, and;
- after the apparent trials of several chemical, biological, and/or biotoxic agents in Laos, Vietnam, and Afghanistan - and his rhetoric on these occasions was sometimes scathing towards anyone who dared speak of a possible Soviet offensive biological warfare program.

Meselson, whether wittingly or unwittingly, helped keep the Soviets' massive biological warfare development and manufacturing agency Biopreparat a secret until deputy directors of the agency Vladimir Pachesnik and Kanatjan Alibekov (who now lives and works in the US as "Ken Alibek") defected and exposed the massive degree to which the Soviets broke their treaty committments - creating a brand-new, massive government agency to break the biological weapons protocol just after they'd signed it!

Now, in exactly what way did Matthew Meselson do anything worth a Lasker Prize in connection with public policy?

The man was the driving force behind an unjust and unequal treaty that unilaterally disarmed the West of biological warfare capability while the Soviets had free rein - and used it - to amass a ghastly arsenal of weaponized smallpox and plague, which Gorbachev himself ordered placed in ICBM warheads - missiles pointed at major urban centers in the US and UK.

We know this from two of the deputy directors of the germ and virus conglomerate Meselson's treaty did so much to make feasible for the Soviets. They defected, spilled the beans, and one of them was murdered later for it.

Meselson's treaty ought to be a case study in the pitfalls of arms control - "how not to do it."

One major, specific lesson relevant to Iraq - and Democratic criticisms regarding the presence or nonpresence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq -
is the ease with which even massive stocks of weapons of mass destruction can be hidden even from intrusive foreign inspection.

The Soviets succeeded for TWENTY YEARS in operating a huge biological weapons effort despite intensive efforts of Western inspectors to pin down their location. Dr. Matthew Meselson was in the forefront of those who poured scorn on the idea that the Soviets were breaking a treaty in which, after all, he had such a large personal investment.

Given this historical background, perhaps the Democrats' flat announcement that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq deserves to be discarded as a completely unverifiable statement made only for its political value.

The Democrats' prime authority on biological warfare throughout the contentious 1980s, after all, has now earned an award based partly on twenty years' experience in NOT finding unimaginably large quantities of biological weapons in the Soviet Union.

Of course, this meshed rather nicely with John Kerry's position at the time as a hard-line Congressional liberal that we were being lied to by the intelligence community about those fanciful Soviet biological and biotoxic weapons.

Sound familiar, anyone?

This is not a good indication of the Democrats' ability - or inclination - to find WMD in Iraq.

SpaceShipOne Wins the X Prize!
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: Good News for Once
THEY DID IT!!!!

The private consortium SpaceShipOne won the Ansari X Prize by launching a tourist-capable spacecraft successfully, then launching it again successfully two weeks later!

Account of the successful flight and Branson's agreement to start the first commercial spaceline here

We science-fiction readers and writers can now pause for an official moment of smug vindication. Space tourism was made possible in a fiberglass spacecraft using laughing gas and rubber as fuel.

How cool is that?

About 4 hours ago, the good people who make 7-Up (that's a carbonated lemon-lime flavored beverage, for those reading this who don't know) announced they are celebrating SpaceShipOne's win of the X Prize by giving away a free ticket into space to some lucky person. Read Official Press Release by Clicking Here

Fans of the author Robert A. Heinlein have reason for smugness in particular, because his novel The Man Who Sold The Moon has a space-obsessed entrepreneur making precisely the sort of marketing agreements to finance a private flight to the Moon as the Ansari X Prize people are making to further the cause of private space travel.

In fact, Heinlein mentions a brand of soda pop nearly identical to 7-Up as one of the co-sponsors of the Moon flight in his book.

We knew it all along.

The Fine Points of the Debate Rules....
Mood:  celebratory
Christopher Buckley in the New Yorker on the fine points of the debate rules.

For instance:

"Paragraph Forty-two: Language.
Candidates shall address each other in terms of mutual respect
(`Mr. President,' `Senator,' etc.).

Use of endearing modifiers (`my distinguished opponent,' `the honourable gentleman,' `Pookie,' `Diddums,' etc.) is permitted.

The following terms are specifically forbidden and may not be used until after each debate is formally concluded: `girlie-man,' `draft dodger,' `drunk,' `ignoramus,' `Jesus freak,' `frog,' `bozo,' `wimp,' `toad,' `lickspittle,' `rat bastard,' `polluting bastard,' `lying bastard,' `demon spawn,' `archfiend,' or compound nouns ending in `-hole' or `ucker'."