Howard Dean just self-destructed. Not for the primaries but for next fall’s general election against President Bush.

His off-the-cuff, knee-jerk – and, thus insightful as to his real personality – comment that he “would not prejudge” Osama Bin Laden before a trial is the single worst presidential campaign mistake since Mike Dukakis in 1988.

Back then, the short and determined governor of a liberal, northeastern state was asked during one of the presidential debates against the first President Bush what he would do if he caught a man raping and murdering his wife.

The Duke replied to the effect that “l hope that the law would take care of the situation.” Of course, what he should have said was, “I’d take a baseball bat and beat the brains out of the bastard before the cops arrived.”

But overly intellectual lefties just can’t express emotions – if they have them – other than liberal guilt and the automatic desire to blame America for every wrong on the planet.

Dukakis’ mistake sealed the deal for Vice President Bush. Coupled with the Willie Horton fiasco, Dukakis was forever pictured in the eyes of the voters as yet another hopelessly liberal egghead from the northeast.

Now, 18 years later, we have another short and determined governor of a liberal, northeastern state - desperate not to be typed as another Dukakis - who has allowed his undisciplined mouth to get him into major trouble.

Merely ‘sounding’ fair about Osama Bin Laden is politically fatal. After all, Osama himself admitted on the first post-9/11 videotape from Afghanistan that he had planned and authorized the hijackings and even boasted that because of his own background in engineering he suspected the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers would melt to the ground.

Dean’s problem is that he is so hung up on the alleged ‘cooking’ of the Iraq intelligence leading up to that war that he can’t see that Osama is a far different issue altogether. Yes, there may be debate over the threat posed by Saddam; there is no doubt whatsoever that Osama has already attacked us!

Frankly, this is G.W. Bush’s soft underbelly. Any candidate running against him can actually move to the right of Bush by advocating an all-out war against Osama and Al Qaeda featuring 500,000 or more troops, if necessary, to invade both Afghanistan and Pakistan to root out Osama and his top deputy, Ayman Al-Zwahiri. This candidate should advocate going door-to-door or cave-to-cave to find and kill or capture these two international murderers.

And to those who say such an effort would destabilize Pakistan and open the way for a fundamental Islamic coup, guess what? That is about to happen anyway!

President Bush promised two years ago to get Osama “dead or alive.” He followed that with a total effort instead to get Saddam. Why haven’t we expended the same effort to get Osama as we have on Iraq?

This unanswered question is Bush’s Achilles Heel next year.

Now Dean has blown his chance to exploit it.

By sounding so ‘legalistic’ and ‘fair-minded” about a mass-murderer, Dean has given President Bush an opening as big as the one the Duke gave his father back in 1984.


Yes, it is a great, great day. The Capture of Saddam is a Big Day for us all.

Now, before Saddam is turned over to Iraqi control, here is what US forces need to do:

1) Saddam needs to be interrogated - thoroughly - preferably under the use of the best ‘truth-inducing’ drugs we now have. (This is being done on other captured combatants – Iraqis, Al Qaeda and Taliban.)

No one needs to know – including Saddam himself – that these drugs were administered to him. The last thing we need from the Left is a ‘human rights’ debate over the human rights of this murderous bastard.

Let’s get on with it. The truth is more important than a legal debate in the World Court or the Hague.

2) Key Questions: First, we must get to the bottom of the Scott Speicher mystery – now! Presumably we have thoroughly interrogated all other captured Iraqis about our only missing POW from the first Gulf War. Maybe it is true that Speicher was held under the personal control of Saddam and his oldest son, Uday. And when Uday went to meet Allah and receive his 72 black-eyed virgins, he took invaluable knowledge with him. If so, we need to get Saddam to answer each and every unanswered question about Speicher – now!

Speicher is our first priority. Our government has bragged that “we never leave anyone behind.” OK, then let’s recover Scott Speicher – hopefully alive - or then his remains so that his family can rest in peace.

3) Next, of course, is everything to do with WMD – the justification for our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Included in this line of questioning should be everything to do with the acquisition of nuclear material: what did he buy, from which country and where is it?

4) Next is Iraqi connections – if any – to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Let us find out for once and for all if this link truly existed. Was there an Iraqi role in 9/11 and the 1993 WTC bombing?

5) Also, what role did the Russians – especially their military – play in re-arming Iraq in the 12 years since the first Gulf War? Did Moscow help in WMD acquisition?

6) Let’s also put to rest once and for all the role behind the scenes of the French Government. Were they ‘on the take’ from Saddam and thus opposed to the war?

RESULTS: What may happen next in Iraq:

1) With Saddam in captivity, American media talking-head pundits are speculating that this will improve the situation ‘on the ground’ in Iraq. Prediction: it won’t. Here is why:

2) With Saddam under Iraqi control, it will only focus the Resistence’s anger ever more at the Provisional Government Authority. The bad guys will furiously try to free their hero or to kill new Iraqi leaders. (In fact, this has already been going on for several weeks.) Look for it to increase now.

3) The Shiite community – the majority of the Iraqi people – are now going to say, “America, thank you for freeing us from Saddam and now for capturing him. Now that he is in captivity, please leave Iraq and let us run our own country.”

The Shiites have had decades of brutal oppression from Saddam. Thus, they have tempered their religious fanaticism during the months since the fall of Baghdad last April. But they have been chafing at the bit and increasingly desirous of the US leaving Iraq. Saddam’s capture will now precipitate even more anxiety among the Shiites that the American ‘occupation’ must end before elections are held that again favor the minority Sunni Muslims.

The Shiites have always been the wild card in the post war Iraq political equation. The nightmare scenario is that they will take to the streets in an Iran-style religious uprising. If they do, all bets are off for peace and democracy in Iraq.

Like Yugoslavia under Tito, Iraq’s three distinct peoples were held together by the common fear of the jackbooted dictator. With him now out of the equation, Iraq may go the route of Yugoslavia: civil wars, lawlessness, paybacks, ethnic cleansings and a totally unmanageable situation – all leading to the formation of independent new nations.

Yes, it is a great, great day. Saddam’s capture is a victory for our wonderful troops. But it may be the beginning of an ever worse situation on the ground in Iraq.


We are losing the war against drugs – legal and illegal – in part because we have chosen to stigmatize drugs morally instead of focusing on facts.

It is true that the Hollywood/media elites romanticize drug use, but we need to focus instead on facts.

We need a national TV ad campaign simply explaining what science now knows about the damage to your body if you take these drugs.

Just last Friday Reuters ran two short stories illustrating exactly how damaging popular drugs are:

1)Cocaine and Ecstasy Cause DNA Mutation -Italy Study
Fri December 5, 2003 12:25 PM ET

ROME (Reuters) - Cocaine and ecstasy not only cause addiction and raise the risk of cancer but also provoke genetic mutations, Italian scientists said on Friday.
"Cocaine and ecstasy have proved to be more dangerous than we had imagined," said Giorgio Bronzetti, chief scientist at the National Center for Research's (CNR) biotechnology department.

"These drugs, on top of their toxicological effects, attack DNA provoking mutations and altering the hereditary material. This is very worrying for the effects it could have on future generations," he said.

The use of ecstasy, a drug popular at all-night dance parties, increased by 70 percent between 1995 and 2000 according to a United Nations report published in September.

Ecstasy and amphetamines have overtaken cocaine and heroin as the fastest growing global narcotics menace, the study said.

The CNR report, which took more than three years to complete, said animal tests had shown a direct relationship between ecstasy and cocaine intake and the effects on DNA.

"In other words, the longer the time frame of drug consumption, the greater the damage to DNA," Bronzetti said.

2) Study: Smoking Cannabis Causes Damage to Lungs
Fri December 5, 2003 07:14 AM ET

By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Smoking cannabis is not the harmless recreational activity it may seem because it can cause lung damage, researchers said Friday.

Regularly smoking three or four joints a week, even for less than six years, can impair lung function and rob the body of antioxidants that protect cells against damage that can lead to heart disease and cancer.

"Smoking cannabis on a regular basis actually depletes your lung of protective antioxidant substances...and this may have chronic long-term implications for young individuals," said Dr Sarah Nuttall of the University of Birmingham in central England.

In a small study involving 20 people aged 19 to 30, including non-smokers and those who smoked tobacco and cannabis, Nuttall and her team took blood samples, measured lung function and tested for antioxidant markers. She presented the finding at a meeting of the British Thoracic Society in London.

"We found that smokers, compared to non-smokers, had impaired lung function," Nuttall said in an interview.

Cannabis smokers also had significantly lower levels of a protective antioxidant and nitric oxide, which is involved in lung function, than non-smokers.

"These findings are important in young individuals in which the use of cannabis is increasing and may have serious long-term implications for what is currently regarded as a relatively harmless recreational habit," she said.

Dr John Harvey, of the British Thoracic Society, called for more research into the effects of smoking on the lungs.

"It is vital that young people understand the dangers of both cigarette and cannabis smoking since these habits can start having a serious impact on their lungs at an early stage," he said in a statement.

Some European countries have taken a relaxed approach to cannabis use. Although it is technically illegal in the Netherlands, the drug can be bought and used in cannabis coffee shops in the country.

The Netherlands was also the first nation to make cannabis available as a prescription drug in pharmacies for chronically ill patients.

© Reuters 2003. All Rights Reserved.

Why can’t we take these two reports – and scores of others – and fashion a huge national TV, radio and print campaign to teach our fellow citizens that they are irreparably harming themselves and their future offspring?

No preaching, no moralizing and no pontificating.

Just the facts, ma’am.


For those who want to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming President of the United States, there is now the STOPHILLARYPAC.COM website. The url is, of course:

Please visit - and support this noble crusade.


Hillary was on the Big Three Sunday morning talking-head shows yesterday – NBC’s Meet the Press, ABC’s This Week and CBS’ Face the Nation.


Because she is keeping it out there.

It is the still-very-real notion that she could still hop into next year’s presidential race.

NBC’s Tim Russert tried in every way possible to get her to deny that she might run; she just couldn’t or wouldn’t state unequivocally, “Under no circumstances will I run for president in 2004.”

And let’s face it: even if she said it, why would anyone ever believe her anyway? As Bill Safire said, she is a ‘congenital liar.’

She just giggles and smiles and tries to look coy.

So let us look at what she does, not what she says:

1) Goes to Baghdad and Afghanistan on Thanksgiving weekend. Why? Simple: it gets her international and national publicity on the two branches of our so-called War on Terror. She goes to Kabul and praises our efforts there; then, in Baghdad, she dumps all over the Administration.

2) She comes home and again, on the TODAY SHOW and in a DC press conference, takes the lead on criticizing our Iraq policy. And in doing so she steals the thunder from the 9 Democrats running for their party’s nomination.

3) Then – out of no where - she books the 3 Sunday morning TV shows – something she has not done since being elected. And, in doing so, she somewhat has to bury the hatchet with ex-aide George Stephanopoulous, the ABC host.

4) Then, in advance of these Sunday Shows, she gives an explosive interview to the Houston Chronicle in which she sounds more anti-Bush than even Howard Dean.

She warned of 'irreparable harm to the nation’ by President Bush. She claimed President Bush and his "radical" administration want ‘to dismantle the "central pillars of progress in our country during the 20th century."’

The former first lady says she has become convinced the Republican administration wants "to undo the New Deal," the Roosevelt-era policies that ushered in Social Security and a host of other governmental assistance programs.

She said that Bush, who campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, had taken a "hard-right turn to pursue an extremist agenda" after moving into the White House.

"I don't know where it came from, but the fact is that this President Bush has not only been radical and extreme in terms of Democratic presidents but in terms of Republican presidents, including his own father," she says.

She believes Bush is beatable next year because his administration is "making America less free, fair, strong, smart than it deserves to be in a dangerous world."

"We have to change direction before irreparable harm is done," she adds.

"This administration is in danger of being the first in American history to leave our nation worse off than when they found it."

Now, if this doesn’t sound like a candidate for the White House, what does?

And, do you know what? The White House may just think she is running, too. The Pentagon would have had to give her an Air Force jet for her Afghanistan-Baghdad trip; such a request is submitted several weeks before a congressional trip.

You can bet the White House saw what she was up to. She was going to Baghdad to use it as a backdrop for a harsh criticism of the Administration’s Iraq policy.

That may have been one of the contributing factors to the President’s surprise trip on Thanksgiving.

Thus you may have had next year’s two nominees dueling it out in Baghdad one year before the next presidential election.