And interestingly, almost on a weekly basis, I read about another terrorist cell being rolled up in Europe or elsewhere. I look eagerly for the signs that our sojourn in Iraq has destroyed the prospects for a war on terror, and I can't find them.

Whether Iraq turns out to be a quagmire is still to be determined -- at least by my lights. I admit it is a risky venture -- trying to set up a base of democracy in the heart of Islam, in a country with no tradition of democracy -- but I'm not sure yet that the costs of failure on that score will turn out to be more than the costs of doing nothing and leaving Saddam in place.

Kerry seems to be from the Carter-State Dept-Kumbayah school of international affairs: if we just sit around and hold hands and make nice, we'll get by. His suggestion, a few weeks back, that his administration would reassign troops, to include troops from Korea, followed three weeks later by Bush's decision to do just that, followed then by Kerry's claim that now was not the time to reassign troops in Korea (what good are tripwire troops when N. Korea now has nukes? Thanks, Jimmy) does not fill me with confidence that Kerry has a hint of a shadow of a clue. He may yet turn out right on Iraq -- his single policy of doing nothing will at some point turn out to be the right choice in some situation, just as a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

We've lost 1,000 in Iraq, and we lose over 40,000 a year on the roads of the US. That 1,000 is one-tenth the number that military genius Ted Kennedy (his military genius acquired while a PV2 to avoid dismissal from Harvard for hiring his roomate to take his Spanish test), seconded by Kerry, predicted in the first Gulf War. I'm a little leery of declaring a quagmire in Iraq after such a short time, and such comparatively few casualties -- less than a third of what we lost on 9/11. Kerry says he won't abandon Iraq, just do it better, though he is remarkably unspecific on how he would do that. Is Kerry part of the problem pointing to a quagmire? One thing is for sure. Kerry (your twit) failed miserably on the great challenge of our time -- the challenge of the Soviet Union. I hope that if he is elected president, his past turns out to be no guide to the future.

Apart from this incident, I don't understand all the joy among the conservatives over Dan Rather. He's only an announcer after all.

Yah, I hope they get those "Democrat operatives." At least the Republic operatives had the decency to sign their own names to their smears. Course they signed some other peoples names to them, too, who hadn't given their permission. But what's a little identity theft between operatives? Doubt it was Rove. He never leaves finger prints on his dirt.

Actually, no - I think it shows the WH staff didn't have copies themselves and weren't trying to cover it up but discuss it. By the way, since you've raised service vs. nonservice as a criterion, Ralph, did you feel the same way about Bill Clinton vs. Bush pere -- a draft dodger (not even the Nat'l Guard) and a volunteer?

I'd rather get out of background (so-called "character") and talk about current events -- like Iran, or the economy. But if Democrat operatives are going to forge documents, I certainly hope they're found.

Or do you believe that it was Karl Rove?

I understand that we are probably going to vote for different candidates for president in November, but don't you find it a little embarrassing that the White House staff, apparently assuming the underlying truthfulness to the claims about National Guard service, simply handed out copies of the CBS documents as if there were no doubt of their authenticity? Rather reminds one of national security's gullibility on documents about Nigerian "yellow cake." In fact, we've seen some pretty shoddy stuff circulating in opposition to both candidates. For me, the background bio story boils down to Kerry volunteering for service in a war he developed grave doubts about and Bush seeking privileged shelter from service in a war he claimed to support.