Much of the focus of the news this weekend was on Hillary Clinton's cleavage, and yes, I fully understand that many people absolutely don't want to go there, but it was in the Washington Post Friday thus we all have to deal with it now.

The estimable Senator from New York gave a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, captured by C-SPAN, on something, the usual blather, and her outfit for the event was a stunning, low-cut, daring V-neck affair. Yes, I am stealing fashion show commentary here on purpose.

Then the Post ran a story Friday about her apparel, which just goes to show you what constitutes news at the Post. In no time at all it became a national issue.

It even was brought up on Friday's broadcast of Hardball, in which Melanie Morgan, the San Francisco radio hostess at KSFO and chair of the pro-troop organization Move America Forward who was there to debate a liberal fluff muffin on another issue, was asked about it.

(Just in case you are keeping score, the fluff muffin, whose name I can't remember and don't care enough about to look up, failed miserably at attempting to intimidate Ms. Morgan. You'd think they'd learn by now that Morgan really knows her subject matter, is tougher than nails, and if they want to ambush her they should at least get someone with a little more than a double digit IQ. But they don't and the result is what Hardball got on Friday.)

Anyway, this issue got me to thinking about how Mrs. Clinton wants to go from former First Lady to current President, which got me to thinking about other major world leaders who were female. Meir, Thatcher, and Indira Gandhi came immediately to mind, and whether you liked them or not, agreed with them or not, you have to admit they were strong, principled leaders and their cleavage was never, ever an issue.

So what do we conclude when we hear Mrs. Clinton going on about women's rights and women's issues and how she will be the candidate who does the most for women? First, when we hear that 'women's issues' means flexible hours at work, day care assistance, and similar matters we can conclude that what she really is talking about are 'family' issues, not women's issues, that already are being addressed all across the corporate spectrum, so once again she is spewing spin, not substance.

Then we look at the horrors women are subjected to in many other areas of the world - rape, slavery, abuse, death for merely wanting to live as something other than handmaidens and second-class citizens - and we realize that these women have major life-and-death issues hanging over them. Compared to what are termed women's issues in America, and the current debate on Mrs. Clinton's fashion wear, it's not unfair to conclude that we are being spoon fed shallow, superficial claptrap.

There are REAL issues in this world. There are REAL issues in this country. But we are having a debate on whether Hillary Clinton should reveal her cleavage?! Am I the only one who is outraged at this? Am I the only one who sees this as a national embarrassment?

My God, what is wrong with our politicians and the people they hire to research issues for them? It is once again all too obvious, considering the fact that this issue was raised - please don't insult my intelligence, she wore the outfit on purpose, she knew it would be broadcast on C-SPAN and the Post was in on the "unveiling" - and that the media pushed it, that our politicians and their advisers have no respect for the American voter.

This is why in every single election the candidates increasingly play to issues that are of interest only to smaller and smaller segments of the voting public - because larger and larger segments of the voting public refuse to vote for any of these buffoons. I don't know whether this is a planned effort to undermine our form of government by getting so many people turned off that they no longer care to be involved, or it is mass stupidity.

Either way the result is the same.

If you take a look at the careers of the other women I mentioned in this article, not the Va-va-voom Mrs. Clinton and her Oh, So Remarkable Cleavage, but Thatcher, Gandhi, and Meir, you will see that they dealt with major issues both on the domestic and international fronts, and they did so in the style of real leaders. They didn't play to the lowest common denominator in their cultures, and they didn't insult their constituencies by pandering instead of leading.

I often take issue with the Democratic Party in this column when matters of this nature arise, but today I'd like to make another point. Many of my Democratic friends, and yes I have them, make no more claim to issues of this nature than I do to the concepts put forth by right-wing extremists who identify themselves as Republicans.

I believe the Democratic Party has been so completely hijacked by the extreme left-wing sect that the bulk of issues being discussed and tactics being used are an embarrassment to many far more sensible people in their party. But only the fringe element seems to have access to the media so we are left debating whether cutting and running is really a military tactic, and whether a dipping neckline proves better leadership qualities.

When we are inundated with non-stop publicity stunts masquerading as action on important national issues, when Congress can't pass a single meaningful piece of legislation because each and every one is bogged down in a quagmire of publicity stunts and self-interest amendments, when what someone wears on television is deemed more important than what they are saying, when matters of the utmost secrecy involving our troops and national security are routinely leaked to the media and openly discussed in Congress instead of in closed door sessions where they belong, we must conclude that it is long, long past time for direct action.

The most direct action that comes to mind at the moment is term limits. This country has shown repeatedly that we have an abundance of intelligent, patriotic, capable leaders who can and will do what is best for America and world democracy.

Unfortunately, we see fewer and fewer of them actually inside government. We have to change that.

In what has to be the peak of chutzpah or the depths of stupidity, wannabe self-anointed Vietnam war 'hero' and Democratic Senator from Massachusetts John "Bubba" Kerry is once again proclaiming that there was "no bloodbath" after he and his communist friends engineered the fall of Saigon in April 1975.

Kerry, who likes to play act that he is an international intellectual, and probably dresses up like Little Bo Peep when he thinks no one is looking, originally made the "no bloodbath" claim in 1970 when he was debating Swift Boat veteran John O'Neill on the old Dick Cavett show.

Kerry said then that if the communists took over, a few thousand - perhaps as many as 5,000 - South Vietnamese would die as a result, making the point outright that the deaths of 5,000 orientals was of no consequence in the overall scheme of the universe. Well, maybe to him, but to those who were facing the communist execution squads not only in Vietnam, but in Cambodia where an estimated 3 million were slaughtered, and in Laos as well, it was a pretty big deal.

By the way, the American Terrorist Media has been trying to downsize the enormity of the slaughter in Cambodia for decades. But in the mid-1990s a team from Yale University went to Cambodia and began unearthing mass graves. They found so many graves, with so many bodies in them, that they upped the estimates to the 3 million plus mark, which is where I get my figures.

Kerry repeated that unbelievably stupid "no bloodbath" comment this week when he was being interviewed on C-SPAN and a caller told him she never would vote for him because his true expertise in the adult world is undermining American troops. She pointed out that Kerry sneaked over to Paris when he was still an officer in the US Navy in the early 70s and met with his communist sponsors which is wildly against the law, gave himself fake awards for self-inflicted wounds and non-existent heroics, using his higher up friends to sign off on them so he can say they were legitimate, and of course making the "no bloodbath" claim.

Just for the record, I didn't hear the actual interview on C-SPAN, but it was replayed on the Rush Limbaugh show Thursday where I did hear it, and he also posted the transcript on his website. I don't want to be accused of taking someone else's material without properly crediting them.

Lately Kerry has modified his position somewhat, inserting the word "massive" in front of 'bloodbath,' apparently to make believe that the communist takeover was relatively benign. I have been debating for some time now whether it is more infuriating that Kerry is this stupid, and this much of a liar, or that he thinks the rest of the free world is dumber than he is and will buy this line of horse manure.

Even his supporters have to be able to see through the hypocrisy, inconsistencies and outright racism of claiming that millions of deaths in Southeast Asia were of little to no consequence but the deaths of 3 thousand American troops in Iraq is a tragedy.

I mourn the deaths of every single American killed in combat in the War on Terror in the last 30 years, and the thousands of innocent victims here and world wide. But I also believe that the wholesale slaughter of so many innocents in Southeast Asia was another Holocaust, and using the 'Big Lie' form of communist propaganda to explain it away might work for a racist sociopath but most normal people are appalled by it.

Kerry, who tried to portray George Bush as the stupid one during their presidential campaign, apparently is so intellectually challenged that he thinks he fooled people by saying the concentration camps that housed hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese political prisoners in horrific conditions, some for more than a decade, weren't so bad. He neatly sidesteps the reported deaths of some 60,000 of these political prisoners in those camps - he uses the communist label "re-education camp" instead of "concentration camp" - obviously because that would prove the lie of his "no bloodbath" statement, regardless of whether he inserts the word "massive" in front of it.

Kerry also declined to answer to the charge that he illegally conspired against the US government when he went to Paris and secretly met with the communists while he was a Navy officer - which would get anyone else who didn't have highly placed government accomplices executed for treason. Instead he wimped out claiming that he merely stood up back then and exposed the US government's lies - which totally avoides the question and only serves to prove that Kerry isn't smart, but he can be deceitful.

A common tactic used by communists to sway public opinion is to privately review their own shortcomings and then publicly accuse their opponents of the same lapses. It is obvious that Kerry had major insecurity issues with his own level of intelligence, since he worked so hard to make it appear that Bush was his intellectual inferior.

However, while IQ test results for the two have not surfaced, their ratings on US Navy intelligence tests are in the public domain and they show that Bush scored significantly higher than Kerry. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has watched or listened to Kerry for any length of time.

But why take my word for it. Here, is a verbatim rendering of his bloodbath comments:
"Let me just say to the first part of your question with respect to boat people and killing, everybody predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There was not a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There were reeducation camps, and they weren't pretty and, you know, nobody, you know, likes that kind of outcome. But on the other hand, I've met lot of people today who were in those education camps, who are thriving in the Vietnam of today."

Scratching your head yet? Feel a bit nauseous? You didn't vote for this baboon did you? Shame on you! He's a dolt.

By the way, the boat people he referred to aren't the members of his Swift Boat crew. They are the estimated one million South Vietnamese who fled their country in terror at the carage inflicted by the communists, most taking to the South China Sea in anything that would float. Some estimates put the number who were killed by sharks, pirates or drowning at 300,000. Kerry ignores that little issue too, but then what's the big deal about 300,000 South Vietnamese deaths if you don't care about 3 million Cambodian deaths?

There is one other matter to address here, that beng Kerry's false claim about deserving the medals he picked up off the ground in Vietnam. His phony Purple Heart claims are well documented, but I'd like to focus on his Silver Star which he was awarded after he supposedly left his post and ran up on the beach of a village where Viet Cong had fired on nearby Swift Boats.

A VC who is said to have been hiding in a spider hole at water's edge had jumped up when Kerry's boat was about 10 feet away, pointed a rocket launcher at the boat, but then turned and ran. The boat's bow gunner mowed him down with a burst of machine gun fire.

The wounded VC, who by now was unarmed, was crawling around to the back of a nearby hooch when Kerry left the boat, ran up on the beach and behind the hooch where a shot was fired and the unarmed, wounded VC was killed. Kerry claims that he was under fire at this time, but still ignores the prohibition against killing unarmed, wounded combatants. (If Kerry had been in Haditha and made a claim like this he'd be confined to a Navy brig for life.)

Here is the point that most people who didn't serve in the military miss when discussing this issue. When you are in the service, and you are assigned a job, especially a combat job, you are supposed to do that job when under fire. Leaving your post and going off to do something else is not just a no-no, it is a court martial offense, possibly punishable by the death penalty depending on the circumstances.

Kerry was commander of a Swift Boat. As such, his first, last, primary and only job was to ensure the safety of the boat and its crew, and the completion of its missions. There simply was nothing in Kerry's area of responsibility that included leaving his boat!

Kerry's boat's mission that day was to aid in suppressing sniper fire. When his boat came under fire it was Kerry's job to make sure his crew was actively engaged in suppressing the fire, taking out the snipers, and maintaining the safety and integrity of the vessel. In no way, at no time, for any reason, was it his job to abandon his post, leave his vessel, run up on shore behind a building, out of sight of his boat and crew, and shoot an already wounded, dying combatant.

His actions that day, if they actually happened, are akin to a helicopter pilot flying into a hot zone while his gunners are exchanging fire with enemy forces on the ground, and upon landing, running out into the jungle to shoot a wounded enemy leaving his helicopter and crew exposed to additional fire and possible ambush.

How did Kerry know, for instance, that a squad of VC wasn't hiding in the brush along the river's edge, waiting for an opportunity to board and capture his vessel? It is common to develop a sort of tunnel vision when under fire, and gunners tend to keep an eye on their own fields of fire, which is why someone is supposed to be watching the overall situation and warning of danger from other directions.

Kerry certainly couldn't do that when he was on the beach behind a building, leaving his vessel vulnerable to attack with no one in command. How do we know Kerry wasn't just running away in fear and hiding behind the hooch in case his boat got hit? How do we know he didn't just fire his pistol into the ground to give the impression he was involved in - what would you call it when you shoot a wounded unarmed guy? Murder?

A wounded, unarmed, dying man posed no threat whatsoever to Kerry's vessel, and thus there was no reason for anyone on the crew to leave their assigned position. The entire premise behind the Silver Star awarded for this action is false and mocks the sacrifices of the thousands of real heroes who were awarded that medal for true acts of courage, some at the cost of their own lives.

In any case, Kerry either deserted his post under fire, or if there was no firing, which others on the scene have said, then all he did was leave his boat, desert his post, and shoot a wounded man. In either case what he did never deserved a medal, and quite possibly deserved a court martial.

In either case Kerry was never a hero, but rather is a thoroughly despicable individual who has brought disgrace onto himself and his family name. His recent comments on the "no bloodbath" also show a total disregard for humans of other races and ethnic backgrounds, and that he is either a consummate prevaricator, in total denial, or an unmitigated racist.

Which would you pick? Or would it be a combination of the three?

Just when the anti-American, pro-terrorist communists and anarchists at ANSWER thought it was safe to crawl out from under the sewer sludge they call home, and again attempt to intimidate our government into giving up the fight against terrorism, the Gathering of Eagles is primed to again offer a counter point of view in Washington, DC, in September.

The GOE, backed by numerous organizations including Move America Forward, is expanding beyond its wildly successful pro-troop vigil in March to once again bring thousands of veterans and our supporters to Washington. The purpose is to again show Congress, the President, and especially our troops, that the vast ocean of Americans who are never contacted by polling organizations support our efforts to win in Iraq and the wider War on Terror.

Just as a reminder, the Gathering of Eagles advocates a non-violent vigil to show support for our troops and our country. As can be found at the GOE website, wwww.gatheringofeagles.org the GOE credo reads in part:

Gathering of Eagles is non-partisan. While each member has his or her own political beliefs, our common love and respect for America and her heroes is what brings us together.

We are a non-violent, non-confrontational group. We look to defend, not attack. Our focus is guarding our memorials and their grounds.

However, we are adamantly opposed to the use of violence, vandalism, physical or verbal assaults on our veterans, and the destruction or desecration of our memorials. By defending and honoring these sacred places, we defend and honor those whose blood gave all of us the right to speak as freely as our minds think.

The original gathering in March was supported to a huge degree by the pro-troop group, Move America Forward, which sponsored a nationwide caravan that started in California and ended in DC in time for the March 17 event. Move America Forward is again sponsoring a caravan which is timing its arrival in DC to coincide with the September Gathering.

According to the Move American Forward website, "Supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom will conduct a nationwide caravan along with more than 2-dozen rallies calling for continued support of U.S. troops based in Iraq ... .

From September 3, 2007 through September 15, 2007 the nation's largest grassroots, pro-troop organization, Move America Forward www.MoveAmericaForward.org will lead thousands of supporters in a cross-country effort called the "FIGHT FOR VICTORY TOUR."

"We'll launch the cross-country caravan Monday, September 3rd with rallies outside the offices of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in California," said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.

"During the cross-country caravan we will stop and conduct pro-troop rallies that will be attended by thousands upon thousands of patriotic Americans who believe that our leaders cannot be allowed to undercut our troops who are bravely serving on the front lines of the war against Islamic jihadism," said Robert Dixon, Executive Director of Move America Forward.

More information on the caravan also can be found at www.MelanieMorgan.com.

In addition to the Gathering of Eagles organization, others who were active in making the original gathering such an overwhelming success are again working on the September gathering, including Ret. Army Col. Harry Riley, who is rallying support through his web site www.eaglesup.us.

Bloggers including Iraq War Today, http://iraqwarnews.net/ also are reaching out to their readers. By the way, Iraq War Today has been sponsoring an effort to send email sympathy cards to the family of Navy SEAL PO1 Jason Dale Lewis, of Brookfield, CT, who was killed in action in Iraq this month:
http://www.iraqwarnews.net/2007/07/saying-goodbye-in-brookfield.html.

If you log on you can show some direct support to the family of a fallen hero.

According to Col. Riley's website, the goals of the September gathering are similar to those of the March gathering including:

We will engage the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) rally/march, scheduled for the same day, which is viewed as an anti-American, anti-troops, destructive, movement. This engagement will be conducted in non-violent, non-confrontation, non-partisan, non-political, lawful freedom of speech manner ... this implies we will not be run over.

Protect hallowed memorials from violence, vandalism, desecration or other form of destruction or dishonor. Demonstrate to our troops that America has their backs, will accept only victory, surrender not an option.

Confirm to the families of our warriors that we honor their loved ones, pray for their safety, and acknowledge their sacrifices. Encourage the vast number of patriotic Americans to stand up for America, show love for America, have faith in America, and that America is worth fighting for.

Confirm to the enemies of America that wars we fight are not lost until America speaks ... America is saying loud and clear, "We've never lost and we're not starting now."

Once again, the GOE will need help funding the event. In March the entire enterprise was put together in 6 weeks for a fraction of the money spent by ANSWER, with ZERO support from the American Terrorist Media and major veterans organizations.

Of the nationally known columnists and commentators, Melanie Morgan and Michelle Malkin were our biggest and most enthusiastic supporters. It would be nice to see the rest of the media and talk show hosts give us a nod this time. Donations can be made directly at the Gathering of Eagles website, as well as at Move America Forward.

Aside from the fact that in March we vastly outnumbered the ANSWER forces, headlined by Cindy Sheehan and the other usual communist sympathizers, prevented any damage to our memorials, and completely blunted their anti-military, anti-American messages, the part I liked the best was when an ANSWER supporter whined to the New York Times, which up to that point made believe we didn't exist, to have been "intimidated" by the veterans.

I loved reading that. I saw it as kind of a vindication of our status as America's defenders, the real ones, not the self-anointed blowhards. And in that vein I have one message for the ANSWER forces who are planning to go to DC in September.

Prepare to be intimidated again.

Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin, appearing on Fox News Sunday this week made a big deal that the Iraqi government has made little to no progress - so he says anyway - toward meeting the political goals that will enable it to operate independently of the US.

This is a marked departure from previous comments by Levin, other Senate Democrats and turncoat Republicans who have been hammering away at America's military for years, claiming that it can't or won't get the job done. Now, when their hypocrisy is revealed in claiming the Surge a failure only a month after its actual onset - historically similar to calling the D-Day invasion of Normandy a failure in July 1944 - they suddenly switch tactics and say the political goals aren't being met.

My, my. Aren't we just the most adaptable group of nay-saying, hand-wringing, appeasing, little communist sympathizers the world has ever seen?

By all accounts, now that the major offensive called the Surge is actually underway - it kicked off at full strength a month ago this week - terrorists are being mowed down at an even higher rate than in the past, which is saying something considering more than 40,000 have been killed worldwide since 9-11.

So, since the Senate Democrats and the Cowards of the Country across the aisle who obviously have no faith in our military leaders or our troops, can't point their fingers and say "I told you so, it will never work," they simply drop that tactic and move on, so to speak, to some other equally vapid form of criticism.

Now, even though the whole world has been saying since Day One that the security situation in Iraq has to stabilize long enough for political progress to have a chance, we suddenly are hearing that the political 'benchmarks' aren't being met, even though the full-force effort to improve security is barely underway.

What is ironic about this is that Levin, in response to some pointed questioning from Brit Hume, not only can't come up with a plan to fix what he says is wrong in Iraq, he can't even articulate what the Surge is all about or when we can take an objective review of its effectiveness. In a news conference last week, Levin said the Surge is now complete and is a failure!

Doesn't this guy watch the news? Does he exist in a bubble? Or is he just a paid puppet for Move On and other pro-communist left-wing fringe groups?

Levin's moving target form of political opportunism would be remarkable if it wasn't so predictably political! Remember Charles Durning doing The Sidestep in the movie version of the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas? If you have a little time, go watch the movie and pay close attention to The Sidestep - especially the chorus that goes:

Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep,
now they see me now they don't - I've come and gone
and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

Then go back and check out Levin's constantly changing commentaries on Iraq, or national security, or global warming, or the attorney general, or whatever else has been in the news for the past few years. The similarities are astounding!

In nearly the same breath that he declares we must leave Iraq immediately, Levin also says "It's not that there's military chaos!" Wow! This is the first time I have heard one of the lockstep Congressional Democrats actually saying the military is getting the job done. At least that is my interpretation of that statement.

Then, in the next breath, he returns to the theme that he wants to begin a troop withdrawal right now, with virtually all troops out by the end of next April. Can you figure out what this guy is saying? And if you can, does it matter, considering that translation to generally acceptable forms of communication is fleeting since he says and means something entirely different only a nano-second later?

Then to really throw you off, Levin says he and Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, both of them absolute geniuses at planning and executing military strategies, have co-sponsored a bill to begin the troop yank immediately. But they don't want all the troops out now, just the overwhelming majority of them.

However, when Brit Hume points out that the acceptable missions that Levin and Reid say still should be carried out in Iraq will need troops, Levin can't say how many because he doesn't want to get bogged down in minutiae, like actually planning these things out.

Phew! Makes your head spin doesn't it?

Fortunately, for people who enjoy Fox News Sunday and appreciate the forum's efforts to give more than one view of a situation, Levin's appearance was followed by Frederick Kagan a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and former professor at the US Military Academy at West Point.

Kagan has provided considerable input to the makeup and goals of the Surge, and spoke at length about Levin's misconceptions. But the word that he used several times, and which I believe best explains the Levin-Reid et. al. point of view is "nonsensical."

I agree. Nonsensical. That pretty much sums up Levin, Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, and the rest. Nonsensical. Yes. I like that.

Collaborators and infiltrators in the US House of Representative are again attempting to deny American troops a hard-fought and well-deserved victory in Iraq.

The Democrats passed a measure in the House on a 223-201 vote, which included four Republican turncoats who should be redesignated as Cowards of the Country. The measure requires U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by spring, which itself is a joke because there is every reason to believe that American forces can begin to draw down by that time anyway.

Ever since the Bush administration announced that a new offensive would begin in Iraq, we have been told that there was a starting date, but no finite end date. People who actually served in the military know that you never make a hard fast prediction on how long something is going to take, because the unexpected is the rule. It takes as long as it takes and it's over when it's over.

We also were told that we would get a progress report from the field sometime in September. That is fine by me, aside from the fact that we never should have announced the so-called Surge ahead of time because it tipped off the terrorists. But a progress report is a good time to take measure of what has happened so far and determine what needs to be done in the future.

Regardless of what the September report says, it has always been understood that September is not considered to be the end of the offensive, just a time when we will get an update on its progress.

However, a new, so-called interim report, that was generated in Washington, using benchmarks determined by politicians, was used this week to say that we aren't getting the job done in Iraq so therefore let's get out now. What a joke. What I keep hearing from Iraq is that we are mowing down terrorists in huge numbers, and meeting the security goals that always were the primary requirement before we started working on political goals.

Whether Iraq, which was formed from three disparate ethnic groups by the British after WWI, will ever be able to work as a unified nation is up to the Iraqis. But they will never have a chance to find out if the Al Qaeda terrorists are allowed to dominate that country. I believe firmly that Saddam Hussein was more than willing to let the terrorists reform in Iraq after we beat them in Afghanistan and use his country as the new terrorist base.

That plan was eliminated when we toppled Saddam, and while I have said before and repeat now, many mistakes were made after his government fell, the fact is we have been killing terrorists in huge numbers there ever since.

As far as the Run Away Measure that the House of Representatives passed, it has a snowball's chance in a forest fire of ever becoming law because it passed on such a slim margin, nowhere near enough to override a presidential veto which is a certainty if the Senate passes it too.

But that doesn't alter the fact that members of Congress are voting to pull the rug out from under the troops at the exact moment they are locked in combat. Saying we should begin a withdrawal in the spring is not only playing right into the terrorists' hands, it is cowardly since even our military commanders have been saying that meeting our military goals should be accomplished in that general time frame.

Want to debate the success of the Surge? Do it in the spring when we can see what has transpired and whether we have met the goals as stated. Doing it now, when the offensive has barely begun, is not only premature, it is treasonous and endangers our troops.

This measure is the most disgraceful example ever of congressional interference in our country's military, surpassing even the murderous example set by cowards like John Murtha and Ted Kennedy when they refused to authorize help for South Vietnam in April 1975. They, supported by slugs like Henry Kissinger, Jane Fonda and John Kerry set the stage for the slaughter of millions of innocents in Southeast Asia.

But even then, American troops were no longer in the country and hadn't been for years. That doesn't excuse the betrayal of our South Vietnamese allies, but in this case, Congress is trying to sabotage our military while our troops are under fire!

The word reprehensible doesn't even begin to meet the definition of what Congressional Democrats and the Cowards of the Country are trying to accomplish.

Speaking of cowards, I notice that John Murtha, the big-mouthed Pennsylvania wannabe war hero is absolutely mute on the report I wrote about yesterday that all but exonerates the US Marines who have been charged with murder after a firefight with terrorists in Haditha. Remember, Murtha declared them cold-blooded murderers in a news conference, even though he hadn't seen a scintilla of evidence to support that statement?

These charges stem from a battle in the insurgent held town of Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. Marines were alleged to have executed Iraqi civilians and that their officers were involved in a "cover-up" of the incident.

Lots of people are calling for an apology. I hope my friends don't hold their breath waiting for it.

Ironically, or tragically, my Marine brothers on the Together We Served website contacted me almost immediately to let me know that the commanding officer of the unit involved has been referred to a court martial for dereliction of duty at the same time that his Marines have been shown to be innocent.

Many Marines are saying that Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani is actually asking for a General Court Martial, which could be a good thing because there a jury of his peers, in other words, combat Marines rather than pencil-pushing careerist REMFs (you'll have to look that up, but caution, it is not for children) would review his actions.

Considering that Lt. Col. Chessani was not on the scene of the shooting, and a review of the actions of the Marines who were directly involved says they should be exonerated, it seems to me that any charges in this case should be immediately dismissed with prejudice, meaning they can never be reinstated.

Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center which has been representing Lt. Col. Chessani since January, says in a recent article on the case, "This recommendation deals more with political correctness than criminality. Lt. Col. Chessani is chastised in the report because he had more confidence in his men than in insurgent propaganda. It glorifies paper pushing over fighting and has the unintended consequence of dampening the spirit of the most ferocious fighters on Earth.

The article adds, "This case is the consequence of Congressman Murtha's politically motivated statements against Lt. Col. Chessani and his Marines, as well as the terrorist inspired story in Time Magazine."

This is despicable. It is the ruination of a fine Marine's career - believe me, regardless of the outcome, his career is over - for doing exactly what he was supposed to do, field highly trained, competent Marines who can and did close with and kill our enemies.

I don't hear Murtha running his big mouth on that either. For those who are waiting for Murtha to apologize, I have another suggestion, recommended by a TWS brother.

President Bush should intervene as commander-in-chief, overrule the decision that Lt. Col. Chessani face court martial, and order dismissal of all charges against all Marines involved in the case. I don't care if there is no precedent for this, he is president and commander-in-chief, he can establish one.

Then he should recall Murtha, who claims to have been a Marine, to active duty. The President then should initiate an intensive review of Murtha's claims to have been wounded in combat, plus his comments prejudging a squad of Marines who obviously did nothing wrong.

Then he should refer Murtha to a court martial for conduct unbecoming, and when he is found guilty, which he assuredly will be, Murtha should be reduced in rank to private, stripped of his self-awarded decorations and drummed out of the Marine Corps in disgrace.

Murtha is a wannabe, or poser, as my friends at TWS call it, and should be exposed as such. He is a disgrace to the centuries of honorable, patriotic men and women who have upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps, and he should be stripped of any pretense of sharing the title Marine.

The first glimpse of hope in a nearly two-year nightmare came this week for some of the US Marines being held in a California brig on charges that they murdered Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

A senior military judge has issued a preliminary ruling that the charges lack substantiation, are inconsistent with observable forensic documentation, and should be dropped.

The incident occurred on November 19, 2005 when Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt and other members of the squad he was assigned to entered a house in Haditha and encountered four Iraqis who were armed with AK-47 rifles pointed directly at Sharratt. The lance corporal emptied his pistol into three of the Iraqis and his squad leader finished off the fourth.

The shootings came at the end of several hours of fighting in the area, which started when a roadside bomb was detonated by terrorists, killing one Marine. Subsequent firefights had erupted throughout the town as the Marines sought to flush out additional terrorists who were hiding among the civilian population.

Things had quieted down somewhat and Sharratt and members of his squad were ordered to man an observation post and keep an eye out for resurgent activity. It was then that they saw the four men peering at them over a wall in a nearby courtyard. They ordered the men to leave, which they did after a warning round was fired, but then they came back.

The Marines were concerned that the men were a terrorist advance party scouting out areas for new attacks. Members of the squad entered what they thought was one house, only to find that it was actually two houses with a small courtyard between them.

Several women and children were evacuated to one of the houses where one Marine was assigned to keep watch on them while the others entered the second house. Here Sharratt encountered the four men and a firefight ensued. An important facet of this issue is that Sharratt used his pistol in the firefight. He was the only squad member armed with a pistol, while the others had M-16 rifles.

Several months later a terrorist propagandist filed a report with an outlet for the American Terrorist Media falsely claiming that the Marines had actually ushered the terrorists out in the street and executed them at point blank range. The ATM immediately ran with the terrorist propaganda, reporting it as factual, and the Marines were branded as murderers without so much as a minute's worth of investigation.

But now we have the first true overview of the situation and we find that not only did the forensic evidence support the Marines' version of the events, but also that the Iraqi claims contradict each other and the physical evidence. In addition their testimony was given in their language to an American who didn't understand it and relied on a translation provided by an interpreter.

A key facet of the testimony is the claim that the women and children were watched over by a Marine with a pistol, while others entered the second house. Testimony also claimed that the Marine with the pistol gave orders to the rest of the squad, but didn't participate in the shooting.

This is where to a trained eye, the testimony was coached. Normally, Marine officers and senior NCOs carry a pistol as their primary weapon and would be giving orders. But in this case, the relatively low-ranking Sharratt was assigned to carry an automatic weapon, but also had a sidearm as a backup weapon.

Beside the evidence showing that three terrorists were killed with a pistol, it is also important to understand that others in the house significantly outranked Sharratt and in no way would a Lance Corporal be giving orders to a sergeant and staff sergeant.

Obviously the testimony was given by people who don't understand the Marines' rank structure and thought that Sharratt carrying a pistol was an indication of higher rank. By claiming he was guarding them and issuing orders when the shootings occurred they obviously were trying to show that a high ranking Marine was ordering the 'executions.' Instead they proved that they didn't see the firefight and had no idea what really happened.

According to the report, the Iraqis were coached during their testimony by a lawyer who specializes in coercing American authorities to pay them for 'wrongful deaths.' After they testified they were paid at least $10,000, by our government, which amounts to four years' worth of an average Iraqi salary.

The final recommendation in the report puts all of this into clear perspective. It reads: "Ultimately there is only one statement by an eyewitness to the events, LCpl Sharratt, and his version of events is strongly corroborated by independent forensic analysis of the death scene."

But there is one other section of the report that really puts the nail in the coffin of the government's case as far as I am concerned: "Finally, to believe the government version of events is to ignore clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and sets a dangerous precedent that ... may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and (the) mission in Iraq. Even more dangerous is the potential that a Marine may hesitate at the critical moment when facing the enemy."

As I said this is a preliminary finding that must go higher up the scale and while it doesn't have to be accepted, it should be. Finally, nearly two years after a squad of Marines put their lives on the line to do the job they were asked to do by their country, someone has stood up and shown this entire situation for what it really is, a travesty.

Behind the scenes, supporters have complained that the Marines charged in this incident have been treated unbelievably harshly, and their families have been under extreme pressure from the government as a means of coercing the squad members to testify against their brother Marines. They would have considered Guantanamo Bay where terrorists are held to be a country club compared to a Marine brig.

But there is more here. Officers who were no where near the scene have been charged with dereliction of duty, and careers have been ruined. Government investigators have been shown to be either horribly incompetent and incomplete in their work, or to have submitted reports that ultimately may be ruled falsifications.

When this is all said and done there are a number of things that should be undertaken at the direction of President Bush, the commander-in-chief.

First, the 'work' of the investigators that led to false charges against these Marines should be reviewed. In cases where incompetence is found, which shouldn't be too hard, the individuals involved should be charged with dereliction, demoted, and fired without benefits. In cases where outright falsification or unlawful methods of interrogation are found, the individuals should be charged with criminal acts and confined in a Marine brig for every second as long and under the exact same conditions as the Marines they falsely charged with murder and associated crimes.

The officer who reviewed the case makes a good point about the potential for Marines hesitating when they are in combat if they fear retribution from their own country for their actions. The counterpoint is that politically motivated investigators in the future should absolutely hesitate, to the point of inaction, when they are considering filing false charges against combat servicemen.

Those who would sacrifice the true fighters just to enhance their own careers should understand without question that if they put themselves above their duty and their country they should and will suffer severe consequences.

If you want to spice up a slow news day on any level, run a story that someone in a public position went out and paid for sex.

Washington, D.C., and the national media are all atwitter over the latest "scandal" that a REPUBLICAN Congressman's phone number showed up on a just released list of clients who patronized a - how shall we say this delicately in a family oriented column - prostitute! God Forbid! A man PAYING a woman to be nice to him.

The audacity! The effrontery! How dare he PAY? Doesn't this guy have any charisma? Hasn't he heard of marriage?

OK, OK, I know, let's get all the "marriage means having to pay for it for the rest of your life" jokes out on the table right now so we can get on with the serious business of sex talk.

And while you're at it go ahead and get a good laugh over the dearth of Democrats on that list, or at least on the part of it the media releases. According to the American Terrorist Media the only people who have illicit sex are Republicans. Except of course for Bill Clinton, who apparently had enough illicit sex during his wilder and younger years - back when he was president - to make up for the rest of the Democrats in Congress and the Democratic National Committee.

Done? Good.

Now, why do you suppose that every time we turn around, someone on the national scene with a major league public profile is found to have been skulking around in the seedy underbelly of human existence having sex? Well, let's start with the obvious - testosterone.

The two primary driving forces of human existence are physical hunger and the need for sex, and the two are inextricably linked. You may not know this, but since I am a weightlifter and personal trainer I do and I'll share it with you.

If you don't get enough to eat, you can't have sex. Not as in you aren't allowed to, but as in you physically can't do it. The sex drive has its base in cholesterol, the bad word of the diet world.

We always hear about having too much cholesterol, especially the bad kind, but we rarely hear about not having enough. You see, cholesterol is a precursor for testosterone and estrogen, the primary male and female sexual hormones. If you don't have enough cholesterol, your body won't produce testosterone or estrogen and your sexual functions will shut down.

The theory goes that long, long ago, back in the days of primordial mists, when humans were just emerging from - well, wherever - there was only so much food to go around because most of it was alive and mobile. If there were too many people in the tribe, and not enough to eat, then the tribe starved.

So, the wonderfully adaptable human body would shut down the sex drive whenever there was not enough food, ensuring that there wouldn't be too much competition for scarce resources.

However, there was a constant war between the need for food and the need for sex, because right after eating, the next most important aspect of human existence, at least on an evolutionary scale is survival of the species. If you don't procreate, the species doesn't survive.

So here we are, all these millions or thousands of years later, with our bodies still at war over eating or fornicating, fornicating or eating. But, and here comes the big but, so to speak, we now have thousands of years of civilization on top of us that have created all kinds of rules about who has sex, when they have sex, where they have sex, and even how they have sex.

(I was told by a reliable source that the missionary position is the one that is talked about most, but doggie style is the one practiced most. That's where the man sits up and begs and the woman rolls over and plays dead. Get it? Laugh a little will you? That was a joke.)

Some of these rules are absolutely necessary as in those that serve to punish predators who prey on children, or rapists who force themselves on the unwilling.

But I swear, some of these rules seem to exist just to exist, or maybe to give women a shot at equality on the playing field of life. You see, in ancient times, males had numerous partners, which can be explained by the overabundance of sperm, while women were more selective, which can be explained by the limited number of eggs.

This combination ensured that the males would be doing their best to impregnate the females and that the females would be highly selective in who got to impregnate them, thus ensuring a constant upgrade in the gene pool.

But now we have all these rules, the basis of which is that men have to change their natural, time-tested, evolutionary habits and give up the practice of having multiple partners, while women get to stay the same as always and be selective, even after they're married. Doesn't seem fair does it?

But there was one other factor in play along the way. Competition. In the good old days it was pretty straightforward. The biggest, strongest and eventually the smartest, got the girl, she got the sperm, and they got offspring that had the best chance of making a real contribution to the tribe and continuing the species.

Instead of producing non-productive layabouts who couldn't hold their own, or help in the survival of the tribe, the combination of competition and selectivity ensured that little matters such as hunting and defense would be high on the list of survival priorities. These people ultimately became known as conservatives, or Republicans.

But that was then, this is now.

Over time, an occasional clinker was born, and instead of contributing to the overall survival of the species, these offspring cried a lot, whined when they weren't crying, didn't produce anything, and spent their lives trying to convince like-minded offspring to form groups to lobby the tribe's producers to give them the leftovers. After many centuries this character trait evolved to a point where willingness to accept the scraps and leftovers was no longer enough, and this subspecies started pushing its way to the front of the line demanding first choice in everything that someone else captured, hunted or produced.

The only exception to this rule was in the area of human defense where this subspecies always drifts to the rear and talks about the strategy, or tactics, or the necessity of the warriors taking defensive postures. They sometimes even try to give themselves false badges of honor to fool the real warriors into believing they truly do make a contribution, but usually their falsehoods are discovered and they are banished to the fringes of society.

This subspecies became known as liberals, or Democrats.

You never hear about them in sex scandals, not because they are shielded by the American Terrorist Media, but because they simply don't have enough cholesterol, and hence, testosterone, to be as sexually active as the Republicans. Bill Clinton was a rare exception to this rule. I know of some others too, who call themselves Democrats and don't fit into this category, but for the sake of their families I won't reveal their names here.

So, that is history, evolution, politics and sexuality in a nutshell. But what does it have to do with members of Congress?

Everything. You don't get to be a member of Congress, especially a Republican member of Congress, by having too little testosterone. The process of becoming a Congressman is a grueling competition, at least by modern standards, and while candidates don't have to bite each other and tear one another to pieces, they still have the same competitive spirit and exult in their victory when they win.

When they go to Washington, especially when Republicans have a majority year, they find themselves awash in a testosterone tidal pool that serves to keep their competitive senses honed to a fever pitch.

Unfortunately, many of these walking oceans of testosterone go to D.C. alone, without their wives, and once there find that there also are many females of the species in the area who are similarly blessed with high levels of estrogen. In the middle of this we toss all the trappings of power, and the aphrodisiac affect they have on the libido and voila, the mix is inevitable!

Now, let's get serious for a minute. Many spouses work hard to keep the home running smoothly and the marriage on the front burner while the Congressperson is away dealing with affairs of state. But sometimes the pressures of the job, two lifestyles, separation and myriad other factors are overwhelming and someone strays, either in D.C., or at home.

Let's face it, there also are plenty of marriages of convenience out there where the career is the driving factor and the dutiful wife, and sometimes dutiful husband, knows that there is a strong likelihood of extracurricular sex. But it is tolerated and it isn't discussed, so long as it doesn't become public, doesn't lead to divorce or loss of the coveted Congressional seat, or involve spreading around one those increasingly virulent, incurable sexually transmitted diseases.

But this brings us back to the rules. The rules say that regardless of what you really do in your private life, no one is ever supposed to find out about it, especially if you are a Congressman and especially if the latest revelation concerns sex.

Personally, I find this to be the most unwarranted type of intrusion into human privacy. It appears that the good Congressman in question this time had already come clean with his spouse a long time ago, and the matter was dealt with in the home. Which is where this issue belongs.

It wasn't after all, as if this guy was caught doing something out in public or was indiscriminate about his activities. It took a federal investigation and a holier-than-thou news media to get this into the public domain. And please, don't get me started on the sexual proclivities of the news media. Talk about hypocrites.

But that is what sells papers, or gets viewers and listeners tuned in, so that is what leads the news hour. It used to be blood and gore, but sex trumps mayhem every time. I don't like it, and I suspect most other people don't either, but that is the way it is.

So that is today's lesson boys and girls. Sex and power go hand in hand, and where you have one you usually have the other. It has always been that way and I for one will be horribly disappointed if it every changes.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go kiss a grizzly and wrestle a pretty girl. Hey, what did you expect? I'm a Republican.

The ruling this week by a federal appeals court that the Bush Administration did not violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) when it monitored phone calls by suspected terrorists in foreign countries, including those who called into America, was not just a Bush Administration victory.

The ruling really was a victory for all Americans, at least those who want to continue living in a free, democratic society. The court tossed a lawsuit brought by a handful of liberal apologists for the Democratic Party who claimed that eavesdropping on terrorist suspects amounted to warrantless wiretapping of domestic phone calls.

The problem, as the court saw it, was not only that the plaintiffs couldn't prove their claims, they couldn't even prove that they had been the victims of phone taps by the federal government. That meant they lacked standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place, so the court told the plaintiffs to hit the bricks.

All patriotic Americans should rejoice over this ruling, because it emphasizes what most people with an ounce of intelligence and a pound of common sense already knew, that if we want to keep terrorists from attacking us again we have to use every means at our disposal to stay ahead of them.

But this then raises the question, why did the New York Times and the liberal tools for the Democratic Party who filed the lawsuit publicize this program in the first place? They had to know they weren't going to win in court once they got away from a pre-selected judge at the district level. So why spend all that time and money on a lost cause?

Perhaps because the lawsuit was never the goal, it was only a means to achieve an end, that being to publicize and thus render ineffective the program's existence in the first place.

Let's take a quick trip down memory lane to put this into perspective. At the outbreak of World War II the United States and its allies were monitoring Japanese and German radio transmissions, much as they were monitoring ours. But what the Germans and Japanese didn't know was that the allies had broken their codes early in the game, and were privy to all sorts of inside information that helped chart our efforts against them.

Breaking the Japanese code enabled American naval leaders to successfully evade a planned Japanese trap at the Battle of Midway. But that was just the beginning of the advantage America gained.

For instance, in April 1943, the US discovered through monitored radio transmissions that the top Japanese admiral, Isoroku Yamamoto, was travelling to bases in the South Pacific by plane. Our side found out when, what type of plane, and even his route. The admiral's plane was shot down and he was killed.

A little more than one year later, in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, 23-26 October, 1944, Admiral Yamamoto's skill and expertise were noticeably absent. The Japanese navy had successfully lured American Admiral William 'Bull' Halsey and his task force far from the scene of the main battle, leaving American forces horribly outmatched and outgunned by a huge Japanese battle force.

The picture accompanying this article is an official US Navy photo of the USS Princeton burning after being struck by a Japanese bomb during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. My father was serving on board at the time.

But just when it appeared the Americans would be overpowered by the Japanese, exposing Gen. Douglas MacArthur's vaunted return to the Philippines to an attack from the rear, the Japanese admiral in charge of their task force inexplicably disengaged and withdrew taking his battleships, heavy cruisers, destroyers and massive firepower with him.

It is safe to project that if Admiral Yamamoto had been in charge, the Japanese would have carried the day and inflicted untold casualties on American ships and troops.

But what if the New York Times, Washington Post, and members of the opposition party in Congress had publicized that we broke the Japanese code, leading them to change it? Yamamoto's trip would not have taken place, or we wouldn't have known about it, and the fighting in the Pacific at the very least would have gone on longer with even more American casualties.

Interestingly, Adm. Yamamoto never expected to beat America at war. His plan was to inflict sufficient early casualties to demoralize the American populace, forcing the US Congress to negotiate a peace that would have been highly favorable to the Japanese. Sound familiar?

Of course, had the Times, the Post or any members of Congress been stupid enough to reveal military secrets during WWII, they would have been charged with treason, tried as spies and shot.

But we aren't in World War II now, are we? Now, many in the American media and government obviously believe that we shouldn't win any war.

This is easily discerned by news stories that serve to demoralize troops and the populace, while boosting the morale of our enemies, and near daily press briefings by legislative bigwigs that reveal military plans, troop movements and what they see as flaws in our strategy. All are instantly available to the terrorists we are fighting.

It is obvious that there are many in America, some of whom were blatant communist sympathizers during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and support the terrorists now, who don't want America succeed. They see our country as bad, rather than a beacon of hope and an example for the rest of the world, and do whatever they can to subvert our anti-terrorism efforts both in the military and civilian sectors.

Many Americans have roundly criticized the Bush Administration for not pursuing treason charges against those who reveal our military and intelligence secrets, and work to demoralize our troops and populace.

But why would this administration take action against its critics, or how could it, when it has imposed restrictions on our military that are leading directly to the deaths of our troops who are fighting terrorism face to face while shackled with inexplicable and lethal Rules of Engagement?

A prime example of this is related by former Navy Seal Marcus Luttrell in his new book Lone Survivor: Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10. In Lone Survivor Luttrell reveals that his SEAL team was on a behind-the-lines mission to take out a major Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan last year when they were discovered by three Taliban supporters, who happened to be herding goats at the time.

Luttrell told KSFO radio hosts Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan on their show Friday (you can listen on the Internet if you don't live near San Francisco) that he knew if they let the terrorists go the Taliban would be alerted. But the Rules of Engagement prohibited them from shooting the men. The SEALs then, and I'm not kidding here, took a vote on whether or not to shoot the terrorists. They voted not to, and in short order the 4-man team was under fire from some 180 Taliban.

Luttrell was the only survivor from his team, but beyond that, a rescue helicopter with relief forces was shot down too, and in all 23 Americans died so that three terrorist supporters could live. All because our troops now have to VOTE on whether their actions to save their own lives will ultimately land them in prison as a result of rules imposed by their own government!

I am not being critical of Luttrell or the SEALs here, but I am highly critical of any administration that puts our military personnel in a situation where they have to VOTE on how they will proceed in a war!

I strongly believe in the 26 Rules of Warfare, labeled A through Z. Rule A is: Do whatever is necessary to survive and win. Rules B through Z are; See Rule A.

So I guess that even though when viewed in an historic perspective much of what goes on in Washington and in the media can reasonably be viewed as treasonous, we can't expect much from a Commander in Chief who is part of the problem, not the solution. Interesting isn't it, that the bulk of the people who impose the rules on others never intend to live by them?

I am not joining the call by some for President Bush's impeachment. But if this is really a global conflict and the greatest challenge that our country faces, then lets get serious.

Putting our troops out for target practice is not what the American people want. That is why people think we are losing the war in Iraq and on terror.

Not because we can't win but because political correctness has run amok. I believe, and I have plenty of support for this, that those who sit in nice, safe comfortable places, and then have the audacity to second guess the decisions made in combat, should be given an all inclusive tour of the front lines.

I bet the troops would be ever so accommodating.

Did you see all the news reports on the number of American casualties in Iraq for the month of June 2007?

Neither did I. I had to go hunting for them on the Internet and while it was easy to find them, the best sources of information were NOT in the news media.

For the record, according to icasualties.org, which seems have an accurate accounting of American and British casualties month by month, a total of 101 American troops died in Iraq in June. That is 101 more American troop deaths than I would have preferred, but apparently it is not enough to get big headlines, because by that count, June 2007 was only the 8th deadliest month in the war.

In the grand media scheme of things, 8th doesn't cut it on the headline parade, so, since there isn't sufficient political equity attached to the number, the brave men and women who died fighting for our freedom last month are relegated to statistics that you have to search for if you have an interest.

There are a number of ways to view the casualties in Iraq, the most sincere of which is that each and every one is a loss of a valued life that should not go unnoticed. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with George Bush and his decision to invade Iraq, we are at war with an extremist sect of a major religion that would be at war with us regardless of where we choose to fight them. Their ultimate goal is total world domination, nothing less, and we ignore that at our own peril.

Every single death the US has suffered since the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 is a tragedy. But there is another number that we also should be looking at when we talk about casualties, and that is the number America would suffer if we weren't fighting terrorists elsewhere, thus preventing them from launching further attacks on our homeland.

Islamo-fascists killed some 3,000 Americans in a matter of hours on one day. That number would explode exponentially if we hadn't taken strong military action against them. We have, like it or not, followed through on what President Bush promised in the days after the 9-11 attacks, to "smoke out" and "hunt down" terrorists wherever they were hiding.

We only have to look at the attempted bombings in England and Scotland in the last week to understand that we are not safe from these fanatics and disengaging in the one place where we can engage large groups of them will only serve to encourage more attacks, not fewer.

But the War on Terror has become such a political football, and the media has played so fast and loose with our military's sacrifices that it is hard to keep our eye on the overall goal, which is to defeat those forces that attacked us. Our troops performed magnificently in Afghanistan, destroying the Taliban and its associated political structure, returning a semblance of normality to that country and stabilizing the military situation long enough for political reforms and institutions to take hold.

But because remnants of the Taliban regrouped in Pakistan, where we have an ally of sorts, and now train new recruits to make occasional forays across the border, suddenly the earlier battles there were a failure, at least according to political critics, few of whom have any military background whatsoever. The fact that these cross-border forays repeatedly result in dismal failure for the Taliban is glossed over, and the ability of Afghan and NATO forces to dominate each and every time is ignored.

But we have to ask the question, if we had stayed at full strength in Afghanistan, exactly how many American troops would have been "bogged down," waiting for the reappearance of a minimally resurgent extremist force, while running the huge risk of alienating a thankful nation by our continued presence on their soil?

And yes, I realize that the same could be said of Iraq. But since terrorists are flocking to Iraq in droves to be gunned down by coalition troops, I have to conclude that our time there is being spent more constructively than it would have been if our forces were in Afghanistan waiting for the next cross-border raid.

In fact, considering that we have less than 10 percent of our active duty and reserve forces actively engaged in Iraq, while terrorists worldwide are putting the majority of their forces into the unsuccessful fight against us there, just who is "bogged down?" From here, considering the pounding the terrorists are taking, and the absence of any discernible gains on their part, other than the number of babies they kill each month, I'd say the terrorists are caught in a "quagmire!"

As a point of reference, in July 1944, a month after the D-Day invasion was launched, American and British troops were still "bogged down" in the bocage country in Normandy, France. It was an area where centuries old hedgerows used as borders for fields also provided German troops and armor with a murderous defensive line against advancing allied forces. Our pre-invasion intelligence either didn't address the difficulties in fighting through this country, or it was ignored.

Movement through the area was painfully slow, our troops had to improvise tactics to make even minimal advances, and the equipment that landed with them on D-Day and thereafter was not appropriate for that type of fighting. So troops improvised attack methodology and trained others. One ingenious NCO came up with a modification to Sherman tanks, using steel scrap from German beach obstacles and roadblocks, that helped cut through the hedgerows and ultimately gave our forces the upper hand.

Yet, it took six weeks from D-Day, until July 18, 1944, for our troops to take St. Lo, less than 20 miles from the beachhead, and make the breakout from Normandy. By the end of July, 1944, the American First Army had suffered 100,000 casualties.

So maybe I'm belaboring the obvious, but declaring the Surge to be a failure before it even kicked off is akin to declaring the invasion of Normandy a failure on June 5, 1944, a day before it was launched.

We also have to understand that the war we are fighting today is vastly different from the one fought in Normandy 63 years ago. In fighting against terrorists we can't take their territory because they have none, we can't defeat a standing 'army' because they fight in small groups using attacks on civilians as a weapon, and we can't overthrow their government because they adhere to no government except the leaders of their very narrowly defined brand of religion.

We can only win by continually defeating their military arm wherever it surfaces, and working worldwide to change their mindset. This takes time, determination, unity of purpose, and a much higher level of debate than we see in Congress and in the media.

I recently received a terrorist casualty update, backed by incident reports including time, location, and units involved, that the terrorists lost more than 1,800 fighters in Iraq between January and May of this year. Since then, hundreds more have been killed in battles with US and Iraqi forces. Conservative estimates put the number of terrorist deaths since 9-11 in excess of 40,000.

But these figures again receive scant notice in the media.

I believe the world needs to know just how bad the terrorists are being beaten. If politicians and the media are going to make a point of using casualties to further their points of view it is only right that they use all the casualty figures, and put them into perspective.

I wish I could bring back every single victim of this war, and I wish there was a way to achieve true world peace without having to fight to do it. But terrorists are no more and no less than rabid mindless predators, and the only successful way to deal with rabid predators is to put them down.

After the physical danger is eliminated, and only then, can we can make real progress on eradicating the causes.

Did you see on the news that when one of the two Islamo-fascists who rammed a burning vehicle into Glasgow International Airport this weekend was struggling with Scottish cops, a Scotsman observing the melee ended it all with a well-placed punch to the terrorist's face, leveling the cretin and enabling police to complete the arrest?

Talk about putting political correctness in its place! I say well done cousin and tonight I'll break out a wee dram of Glen Morangie and toast your courage and style. I bet the guy is a highlander.

Just goes to show you, England may have forced most of the Scots out of Scotland in the Highland Clearances, but they didn't squeeze the essence of independence and direct action out of those who stayed. Personally, I believe that a lot more direct action, and a lot less of this tiptoeing around the 'rights' of psychotic morons who think that blowing themselves to bits is the true path to paradise, would go a long way to helping these misguided unfortunates rethink their priorities.

Did you notice, by the way, that no one in London is getting in Scotland Yard's face complaining about the treatment of the half-dozen or so suspects who have been arrested in the weekend's three attempted attacks? Scotland Yard, England's in-house crime fighters similar to America's FBI, has decades of experience fighting guerrilla style terrorism through its battles with the Irish Republican Army, and seems to have gained inordinate amounts of information on the attacks and who was behind them in a matter of only hours.

I bet the British anti-terrorism forces sat the suspected terrorists down and offered them tea and cakes and a quiet, heartfelt discussion on the error of their ways. Then the suspects saw the light, renounced violence, and pointed the Brits to treasure troves of intelligence. I bet.

Considering that the Brits, and in many ways, most of Europe, have been bending over backwards to accommodate the Muslim religion and its practitioners who claim to be spreading only peace and understanding, what exactly was the rationale for the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow this weekend? Further, considering that Scotland is working its way toward independence for the first time since the Acts of Union in 1707, and thus could reasonably be considered separate from England, much as Ireland is really separate from England, why have the terrorists declared war on the Scots?

If they want to punish England for supporting us in Iraq, I guess it would make sense from their point of view to attack England. But Glasgow Airport? I've been to Glasgow Airport when I visited Scotland a few years back to look up some cousins and find the place where my father was born. I spent half a day in Glasgow Airport waiting for my son's flight to come in.

What a friendly place! It was nice there, the people were helpful, they even suggested a spot where I could take a rental car and practice driving on the 'other' side of the road. Why would you bomb Glasgow Airport?

This just goes to show the random hatred that is part of the terrorist mentality. Other than getting on TV, which frankly, has gotten quite old from a shock and awe standpoint, considering what we see coming out of Iraq every day, there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason for that attack. All the yahoos got were some film clips of a burning automobile that charred a very small part of one building.

They didn't get to commit suicide in the name of Allah - what do you think is going to happen to these suicide bombers when they face the ultimate judgment and Allah says he never told anyone to squander their human existence in his name? - and they didn't even make much of a splash.

One guy is in prison with extensive burns and a busted up face, the other is having tea and crumpets with Scotland Yard, and a whole bunch of their associates are cowering under the cellar stairs knowing that they are only moments away from a visit by the local constabulary. They came across as murderous, insane swine to the rest of the world, with a sacrilegious disregard for Allah's creations.

Boy, that is sure going to get a whole bunch more people lined up to follow that example! Wish I'd thought of that!

I did come up with a good idea on how we can transmit Scottish values to the rest of the world, especially those values that deal with smashing a terrorist in the face. Scotland is working its way toward Independence, and if and when they achieve it, the Scots will require some independent sources of national income. (They pretty much got screwed out of North Sea oil revenues, so they need something else.)

I suggest that we develop a new television game show, based on American Idol, but have it hosted in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Perth, Inverness, St. Andrews, or some of the smaller Scottish communities in a rotation basis.

We'll call it Smack The Terrorist, kind of like the Smack the Mole game where a subterranean mammal pops up out of random holes and you have to smack it to get points. Except in this case, the game will require contestants to sift through a stack of clues in one hour, and in that time identify and apprehend a real terrorist.

Those that compete successfully get to go on to the next week, until the Grand Finale. If they win and become the Scottish Terrorist Smacker, they are given one year to host parties and events celebrating Scottish history and culture, which will be attended by celebrities, movie stars and millions of tourists from all over the world. The position will carry prestige, a substantial salary, and best of all will attract hordes of tourists and the dollars they so willingly part with when on vacation.

Here's the best part. Each week there will be an even number of contestants and terrorists, with the latter plucked from combat in Iraq, Afghanistan or other terrorism havens.

The ones who are identified and apprehended by the contestants will be returned to Scotland Yard for indefinite periods of conversation, tea and pork pies. They ones who aren't identified by the contestants will be let go - right into a stadium packed with European soccer fans.

The soccer fans can only be from clubs that are having a losing season. And for several hours prior to the end of each Smack The Terrorist show, the soccer fans will be treated to unlimited quantities of free beer, and shown repeated videos of referees making horribly blown calls against their favorite teams.

All the while, the audio portion will link terrorist organizations to the offending referees. Then, when the unidentified terrorists are let loose after the show, the announcer will intone "You've seen them on television, you've seen the work they do behind the scenes in World Cup Soccer, and NOW, representing Al Qaeda, and the worst soccer referees in the world this season, this week's unapprehended terrorist ..." and out he comes.

The resulting carnage will be filmed for later release on Pay Per View satellite television, with proceeds going to improve the Scottish Internet and business facilities. I tell you, marketing in the Internet age is opening up vast new opportunities.

One of the most unfortunate forms of fallout from the recent uproar over the US Senate's attempt to pass a highly flawed immigration 'reform' bill, is the sense of outrage directed at talk radio by Washington insiders, Democrats and Republicans alike, specifically conservative talk radio, and especially conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Now, let's get one thing on the table right from the outset. Saying that Rush Limbaugh needs any help from my website is like saying a battleship needs help from a rowboat. But it's the thought that counts so here are a few of my thoughts.

One of the most surprising sources of attacks on talk radio, which primarily is is aired on A.M. stations, came Thursday night on the cable television Fox News Special Report hosted by Brit Hume. It wasn't Hume who attacked talk radio, in fact I believe he was as shocked as I was to hear it.

Rather it came from commentator Mort Kondracke, who with conservative author, columnist and editor Fred Barnes, hosts the Saturday evening Beltway Boys, also on Fox. Kondracke is strong in his opinions, a requirement for what he does, but in this case he came across as being angry, perhaps even outraged. And his sense of indignation over the failure of the Senate bill was nearly matched by Barnes'.

I have been asking for some time now, exactly what is going on behind the scenes with this immigration bill? It is unlikely that President George Bush would align himself with his most strident of political enemies, Sen. Ted Kennedy and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for instance, without a major overriding reason. It is equally unlikely that a staunch conservative like Fred Barnes would be found singing Kennedy's praises and supporting a bill that was so fundamentally flawed.

Yet that is exactly what was happening in D.C. over the past two months, and it raises all kinds of red flags in my mind. Moreover, when the bill failed, the vitriol that usually comes only from the extremist Democrats was matched by that coming from Republicans!

It really spilled over on the commentary segment of Special Report Thursday night, and even though it was offset a day later when columnist Charles Krauthammer appeared and weighed in supporting the bill's defeat, it was obvious that Kondracke and Barnes were still upset over the issue.

OK, there is more here than meets the eye and eventually when people like me get our hands on the hundreds of pages of legalise and obfuscation that most likely define the bulk of the now-dead immigration bill, we'll get some idea of what was in there that so many Washington insiders wanted passed.

But the thing that caught my attention and raised my ire was the constant refrain that people who listen to conservative talk radio are nothing more than sheep who are easily and regularly bent to the wills of commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage to name but a few.

I have made no bones about listening to Rush Limbaugh regularly, and there are many reasons why I do. He is accurate, and timely, and irreverent. He usually targets liberal Democrats, but he has no qualms about aiming at Republicans who claim to be one thing in their campaigns but show themselves to be quite different in their actions.

Although he can be found on several A.M. radio stations in my area, I usually listen to him on the Internet when I am in my office, primarily because the Internet fillers that play when commercials are on the radio are creative and funny and much more entertaining than product endorsements.

But I also listen to Rush because my wife and I home-school our daughter, and among my areas of responsibility are instruction in civics and politics. I have found Rush to be an unequalled source of accurate and in-depth information on the workings of our government, as well as a font of historical information on what drove the founding fathers to make some of their decisions.

It is easy to listen to Rush and teach my daughter since the first hour of his show matches up with our one-hour exercise period. I am a certified fitness instructor and power lifter, and have a gym set up in our basement.

When we are working out we listen to Rush on the radio. Since he is focused on current events, I find I often can dovetail my daughter's civics instruction with his commentary. I'll give you a recent example.

In late spring, the House of Representatives was holding another one of its mindless, endless, going-nowhere inquiries, highlighted by a very public hearing, into Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales' firing of a handful of federal prosecutors. I had been watching the proceedings on Fox News on my office television, and when we started our exercise program for the day I still was grousing about the incredible waste of public money and resources.

When my daughter asked what about this issue had me so disgruntled, I pointed out that President Bill Clinton fired 93 prosecutors without so much as a peep from Congress, that the prosecutors work at the pleasure of the president, and that they can be fired any time for any reason or no reason at all. Further I noted, and this is true to this very day, these interminable hearings have produced nothing save for the unbelievably stupid commentary that lack of evidence of any wrongdoing only indicates the depths to which the administration would go to cover up something that can't be found.

I told her the background of the controversy, and in doing so explained about executive privilege versus Congressional authority, reviewed the separation of powers, and referenced it to the Watergate hearings in the Nixon administration. I was careful to note that in Nixon's case Congress was investigating administration ties to a criminal act, while in the present case Congress is engaged in a witch hunt that only succeeds in displaying the archaic mindset in Washington, since hanging and burning witches went out of fashion centuries ago.

Not five minutes later, while my daughter was engaged in cardio exercise and I was performing overhead presses, Rush began commenting on exactly the same issue, and raised many of the very same points about executive privilege, even going over the Watergate issue. He had some additional points that I found helpful in explaining the overall situation, and what was really nice was the look on my daughter's face when she heard her civics lesson being repeated on national radio!

Not for a minute, even with all the paranoia about homeland security and terrorist eavesdropping methodology, do I think that Rush Limbaugh has bugged my basement gym to get ideas for his commentary. I think we both discussed the Gonzales hearings that day because it was current, and we share a common interest in the workings of our government as well as a common point of view on the role of government in our society.

I don't believe talk radio drives opinions in this country, I believe talk radio reflects opinions in this country. I don't believe conservative talk radio succeeds while liberal talk radio fails because of a lack of government oversight.

I believe liberal talk radio fails in the commercial marketplace because it tends to offer diversions and distractions to the real issues, and it exists in a vapor-locked atmosphere of fairy tales and hallucinogenic dreams. Liberal talk radio exists to further the concept of overwhelming government control, and far too often plays fast and loose with facts in the belief that the ends justify the means.

Does that mean that Rush Limbaugh is right 100 percent of the time? No, but he admits it and immediately corrects it when he has made a mistake. Try getting that service from Air America radio.

It was tremendously disappointing to hear so many Washington insiders join the anti-talk radio refrain and lend their support, directly or indirectly, to attempts to create government control over information dissemination via the so-called Fairness Doctrine. It is short-sighted to believe that government control over someone with whom you disagree today, can't backfire and be aimed at you tomorrow.

Here is something for Washington to chew on. I was opposed to the latest incarnation of the immigration bill for numerous reasons, but the one that resonated the most with me was the section setting 24 hours for immigration authorities to do background checks on suspected gang members. Twenty-four hours for a background check on an illegal immigrant with possible ties to criminal gangs?

I can't legally buy a firearm in Connecticut without a two-week wait for my background to be checked, even though I have lived in this country my entire life, I have served in the Marines, fought in a war, and at one time had a secret security clearance.

It takes two weeks to clear me if I want to buy a new shotgun, but only 24 hours are allocated for a person who already is a criminal by being here illegally, and may well be engaged in far more destructive behavior?

Here's another thing I don't like. Border patrol agents being arrested, tried and jailed for shooting a foreign drug smuggler in the ass when he's trying to bring hundreds of pounds of marijuana across the border. I consider the influx of illegal immigrants to be an invasion, and thus we are at war.

The border is a war zone, and those crossing illegally are enemy combatants. If they are armed, and smuggling in illegal substances to help undermine our citizens and our country, they damn well ought to be shot on sight. The agents who shoot them should get medals not prison sentences.

I got my information on both of those issues from a plethora of sources, including but not limited to Rush Limbaugh. What Rush did was fill me in on numerous other reasons why the immigration bill was flawed. I found it helpful and quite supportive.

To accuse talk radio and any of the hosts, national or regional, of creating the atmosphere of distrust of Congress is specious at best. To accuse the ocean of Americans who listen to talk radio of being ignorant, mindless sheep is petulant and arrogant.

I would suggest to those who have such a problem with talk radio, especially in light of the eruption of passion over the immigration bill, that there is a far more accurate method of finding the source of all this dissent. Try looking in a mirror.

The US Senate, in its vote Tuesday to continue the push on the pending immigration 'reform' bill, has showed that once again, and more dramatically than ever, it has no interest in actually serving the interests of the American people.

How many times have we heard some senate blowhard claiming to know what 'The American People' want, all usually tied to some phony poll that posted the desired answers before even asking leading questions to select respondents to be sure the required answer was delivered?

But when push comes to shove, and the American people are screaming bloody murder because our esteemed senators are turning a deaf ear to their concerns, suddenly 'The American People' are not to be listened to, trusted, or heeded.

I believe the reason we get so little respect from our senators, as opposed to our Representatives who seem to be at least a little more in tune with the electorate, is that senators only have to face reelection once every six years. The reasoning, as I see it, is that our senators think we are so stupid and suffering so badly from attention deficit disorder, that by the time they have to come around asking for our votes again we'll forget how many times they screwed us in the past six years.

The way to fix that little misconception is to reduce the interval between times when our aloof little senatorial miscreants have to talk to us, and limit the amount of time they get to spend inside the Washington, D.C. beltway, which has a debilitating effect on gray matter.

My suggestion, and I have made this many times in the past, but obviously I have to do it again, is to first revamp the length of the terms. Under the current system, representatives serve two-year terms, meaning they face re-election every other year.

Political campaigns being what they are these days, that means we get one year of work before they have to spend the second year of each term running for office. That means out of a six-year term of service, for instance, we got three years of real work and three years of campaigning.

The Senate on the other hand, serves six-year terms, so Senators give us five years of work, well maybe, for every one year of campaigning. Thus the House is far more susceptible to the shifting winds of American political opinion than the Senate.

I believe we should change the terms so Congressmen serve four years and Senators serve four years. Their terms should be staggered so a state isn't faced with reelecting its entire Congressional delegation at once.

Service in each house should be limited to two terms, meaning both senators and representatives can serve only eight years - if the voters like them enough to send them back after their first term.

Best of all, out of the eight-year maximum terms, only one year would have to be spent campaigning so we would get seven years of actual attention to the needs of the electorate. Not a bad deal as I see it.

Under my plan, eight years can be served as both senator and congressman if the voters like them that much, giving some politicians a total of 16 years in D.C. before having to actually apply for work with a lobbying firm, rather than working under the table.

In fact, lobbying in D.C. will take on a whole new energy level as the constant changes on Capitol Hill require near constant efforts at keeping up with who's who.

There is one major hurdle to this proposal, however, and I would like to hear from Congressional scholars on how it might be overcome. The hurdle is that terms are set by the Constitution, meaning a Constitutional amendment will have to be enacted for term limits to become effective.

But the very people who would lose their stranglehold on American politics would have to vote in favor of this amendment for it to go forward. We all know they aren't going to do that. So, does anyone have an idea how we can circumvent that process and get the people directly involved?

Anyone who watched Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this week, and still has control of their faculties, saw a Senatorial Pas De Deux featuring supposedly conservative Mississippi Republican Trent Lott, who at times seemed to be drooling over really liberal California Democrat Dianne Feinstein.

If you got through the incessant mutual stroking, er, praise, and actually listened to the words that were coming out of their mouths, and have even an ounce of common sense, you would be horrified to learn that to varying degrees they both support the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a communist-inspired attempt to authorize government control over the national broadcast media, particularly radio.

The Fairness Doctrine, or Un-Fairness Doctrine for the purposes of this column, is a grandiose idea that attempts to circumvent the general public's complete dissatisfaction with liberal talk radio that serves only to endlessly repeat left-wing Democratic party talking points.

Although moderate and conservative talk radio hosts can make a really good living at hosting their own regional or national talk shows, their liberal counterparts have failed dismally, as is best showcased by liberal talk Air America which was listened to at its height only by five winos in a Manhattan study on mind control.

So, to offset the basic common sense exhibited by millions of thinking Americans, some 'geniuses' in Congress want to make it a law that if a radio station airs a wildly successful conservative talk show, they have to offset it with a dismal money losing piece of liberal propaganda from some brain dead lemming who hasn't had an original thought, well, ever. This they call FAIRNESS.

Lott and Feinstein claimed in the Fox News Sunday segment that they are considering this measure because conservative talk radio is driving the debate on immigration. Then these two, US Senators both of them, claim they can't get the REAL word out about immigration 'reform' and other measures they are pushing because conservative talk radio isn't telling the WHOLE story.

This scenario played out recently in the newly turned communist country to our south, Venezuela. Did you see what You-go Chavez did with a public broadcasting station that had the temerity to broadcast more than one point of view. Goodbye freedom of speech, hello riots and death squads.

Feinstein said, and I quote, "Talk radio is overwhelmingly one way," and the only way to rectify what she claims is a gross injustice in the world of political communications is to make it a law that we HAVE to listen to left-wing liberal tripe.

Wrong sister. Talk radio is whatever talk radio wants to be. But talk radio listenership won't support liberal talk radio because most Americans are far more aware of the issues than liberals want to believe and most Americans simply won't tune in to liberal talk radio with any regularity. Thus Feinstein and Lott feel as though they are shouting into a wind tunnel, so to speak.

Ohhh, poor babies. I have a better idea.

If your point of view can't make it into the communist controlled mainstream media, even though you are a US Senator with instant news coverage at your fingertips twenty-four hours a day, rather that screw with the US Constitution and the most basic of our basic rights, that being the First Amendment, how about if you just FIRE YOUR COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORS YOU FATHEADS!

Are you kidding? And we wonder why half the registered voters in America don't vote in most elections?

Then, get this, Chris Wallace asks Feinstein why, if Democrats are in control of Congress and pushing their own agenda, they not only are unable to get their message across, but voter confidence in Congress has dropped to 14 percent, the lowest level ever in the history of polling on Congress.

She responds, here we go again, its THE WAR IN IRAQ! She claims that the Republicans have prevented the Democrats from ending the war by retreating this instant and laying the entirety of the US mainland open to unrelenting terrorist attacks. Well, if the Republicans did in fact prevent us from retreating in Iraq and opening us up to unrelenting terrorist attacks, GOOD FOR THEM!!

Americans don't want retreat in Iraq, they want VICTORY! Got it?

This is one of the stupidest, most pandering, self-absorbed, egotistical examples of the true isolation that comes from spending too much time inside the Washington, D.C., beltway that I have ever witnessed.

Term limits, term limits, term limits, FAIR TAX, term limits, term limits!

Americans may not know every single aspect of the immigration bill as Lott claims, but we know enough of it to know that it is horribly flawed, full of loopholes, won't settle the matter, and should be scrapped. We know that you can start fixing the immigration issue by securing the border, enforcing existing laws on illegal entry to this country, deporting those who are here illegally, and ending all the stupid socialist benefits given to illegals that aren't available to most American citizens.

Enforce what we have, and see how that works. Then if necessary, we'll be open to talk about further legislation. Until then, I don't want to hear any more whining about "I can't get my word out. Boo-hoo, boo-hoo, poor me, poor me."

What a diaper full.

One last thing before I go. This bill, like so many others that grow in the mushroom producing factory we refer to as the US Congress, can only succeed in manure and darkness. That's fine for mushrooms, and I do like mushrooms.

But with mushrooms I know what I'm getting. With Congress, what you see is never what you get.

Like so many others, this bill won't work. If for some whacked out reason, this bill ever passed, you would hear a giant whooshing sound, not unlike the one described when Ross Perot was talking about NAFTA, but this will be from talk radio hosts across the country moving over to satellite radio.

In very short order, AM radio will die, thousands of innocent engineers, receptionists, programmers and related employees will be out of jobs. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, Melanie Morgan and Lee Rodgers, and dozens if not hundreds of regional talk show hosts will be off the AM radio waves and onto the satellite waves.

Most of these hosts and hostesses already can be heard around the world on the Internet. Moving to a relatively cheap satellite subscription where you can hear what you want without being forced to listen to propaganda, won't be much of a leap.

That is something that the DC insiders should consider very carefully before continuing on this line.

Oh, one other thing. At the end of the Fox News Sunday segment featuring Lott and Feinstein, Fox showed a shot of the two of them wearing seersucker suits, kind of a Pajama Day in Congress I guess.

Lott said they did it to lighten up the mood in Congress because they don't have enough fun in Washington. "We never have a chance to laugh at each other," Lott lamented.

Really? Hell, the rest of us are laughing at these bozos all the time.

I'll tell you what I think would be funny. It would be hilarious if Mrs. Trent Lott sits down and watches a tape of her husband fawning all over the California Senator on that Fox News Sunday segment just before the good senator shows up on the next break or recess.

I think a shot of her meeting him at the door with a cast-iron frying pan upside the head would be absolutely hilarious. Now that would be funny, I don't care who you are. (Yes, I enjoy Larry the Cable Guy. So What?)