1) Bill Endorses Hillary - what a surprise! AOL is running an online poll which has Hillary tied at 49% -49% in the 2008 election. And 52% say she would make a good president. Now that is something to worry about!

Bill Clinton, in Tokyo, told the media there: "I don't know if she'll run or not," he told the network, but added, "She would make an excellent president, and I would always try to help her."

This interview is yet another clear signal that Team Clinton is prepping the battlefield for 2008. Bill Clinton - by far the most popular Democrat in the land - sounds like he is going to go all out for Hillary.

Last week in New York City, famous and powerful Hollywood mogul David Geffen - a founding partner in the Dreamworks Studio - and a longtime Bill Clinton supporter and donor, rocked the Democrats by publicly stating, “Hillary can’t win. She is too polarizing. There has to be more to running for president than raw ambition.”

Geffen, a billionaire and leading gay rights supporter, is a smart political judge. He knew Bill Clinton had what it takes early on. Yet he has rejected Hillary. What does this mean?

Democrats want to win back the White House in 2008 - more than anything else. Clearly many Big Shots wonder if Hillary isn’t just too divisive and polarizing. This same fear is partly why the Democrats rejected their hearts’ candidate last year - Howard Dean - because “he can’t win,” and went with what their heads told them: John Kerry can win so let’s support him even if we’re lukewarm about such a cold fish.

In 2008 will they listen to their hearts or their heads?

2) Newsweek’s Periscope section in the current issue details the extent to which the Iranians are already infiltrating the new Iraqi government.

Teams of Iranians have been infiltrated into Baghdad and have taken over key posts in the bureaucracy.

As predicted here for the past two years, the ultimate outcome of our pre-emptive invasion of Iraq will be to hand over Iraq to the Ayatollahs of Iran - the exact oppositie result of what we wanted!

The Prime Minister-to-be, Dr, Jalawi, is a long-time resident of Tehran, a big supporter of the Iranian Revolution and a fundamentalist Muslim who intends to run Iraq with fundamentalism as the guiding rule. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that Jalawi is directly linked to terrorism against the United States including attacks in Kuwait in the past.

We are headed for worrisome shifts of power in the Middle East.

3) Chris Rock can’t hold a candle to Johnny Carson. Period.

4) Am starting to read and hear chilling mentions of the possibility that Japan will soon “ go nuclear.” This is a frightening possibility. Just last week Japan announced their support of Taiwan in any future conflict versus mainland China. Why is Japan suddenly butting into the Taiwanese affair?

Could it be that Japan is in Iraq to please GW Bush - and to innoculate themselves for the inevitable storm of criticism if they announce they possess nuclear weapons - in direct conflict with their post-WWII treaties and agreements not to have an offensive military capability?

This is a potentially huge story to keep our eyes on.


Can you believe some of the things happening in the news lately - especially ‘flip-flopping’ things that make Team Bush look even squishier that John Kerry?

Let us examine a few:

1) Talking to the Iraqi Insurgency: Time Magazine is reporting that the US Military forces based in Baghdad’s Green Zone have recently held two meetings with a leading member of the Iraqi Insurgency - the very people who are killing our troops!

If the Clintons did this we would call it ‘appeasement.’

How can the Bush Administration possibly defend “opening a dialogue” with terrorists, murderers and opponents of the very democracy Mr. Bush says he wants? What of the legacy of the 1400 American soldiers killed by these bastards? For what did they die if we now try to ‘work with them’?

Why don’t we follow this up by negotiating with Osama Bin Laden, too?

Where does it stop?

American policy has been - for decades - that we do not negotiate with terrorists; President Reagan, in his zeal to recover hostages held in Lebanon in the 1980's, made the crucial mistake of dealing with Tehran in what became the Iran-Contra Scandal. That mistake tarnished Mr. Reagan’s presidency forever. If Mr. Bush’s subordinates are countenancing a ‘dialogue’ with these murderous thugs in Iraq, then the whole Iraq War has been - and will be - a total farce.

2) Looking for a good cowboy: Suddenly President Bush has totally reversed course and gone acourtin’ the French!

After blaming the French for their obstinacy and their secret dealings with Saddam, everything French suddenly became poisonous in this country. Remember Freedom Fries replacing French fries? Remember the French wine embargo? And remember all the accusations of French arms deals with Saddam’s government - and inside the UN, too?

But now suddenly President Bush is reaching out to President Jacques Chirac and even inviting him to his Texas ranch, saying yesterday to the press, “I am looking for a good cowboy.”

Why the total Bush flip-flop?

Because the President of the United States - any President of the United States - cannot succeed in foreign policy by purposely alienating our traditional allies - and even going out of his way to insult these leaders. Remember Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld blasting “old Europe” and praising the “New Europe” - those Eastern European nation recently joining NATO and the European Union?

At the core here is the problem in Iraq: we desperately need help there - both financially and with troops on the ground and training Iraqi security forces. Our “do-it-alone” approach is wearing out our military forces and depleting our budget. But, alas, that means asking our reluctant allies for their help. And Bush so insulted these leaders personally that he now has to eat crow and even invite Chirac to his beloved ranch and call this Frog a ‘cowboy’! All because he treated Chirac badly 2 years ago and now he needs Chirac’s help.

What a flip-flop!

3) The Bushes and Clinton: this has become a veritable love fest between Bush 41 and Clinton - with Bush 43 also now admitting how much he likes Clinton.

Yet another flip-flop from 2000 when GW Bush promised not to ‘dis-honor the White House” - and made it clear how much he disapproved of Bill Clinton’s tawdry behavior.

Well, now all we hear is how much they all like each other. Anecdotes from the opening last year of the WWII Memorial and the Clinton Library show a very, very friendly relationship between the three. And this Tsunami Relief Tour is a constant joint press conference about how much they like each other.

That is OK - people can often like each other - but it is yet another flip-flop for the Bushes to embrace the very person they correctly labeled a moral degenerate when they ran against him in 1992 and against his legacy in 2000.

4) Nation Building: Remember in the 2000 campaign how candidate GW Bush castigated the Clinton/Gore Administration for squandering billions of dollars on ‘nation-building’? And how Mr. Bush criticized ‘stretching our troops too thin’?

Well, guess what?

Team Bush wants another 80 billion this year for nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And our troop levels are seriously depleted, too, to the point where we could not wage another war if we had to right now.

All because of our do-it-alone actions.

How about squeezing some Arabs for some money, Mr. Bush? How about the Saudis ponying up for the removal of Saddam as a threat to them?

Conclusion: Team Bush has learned a lot along the way and thus is absolved of blame for switching positions. But some of the above - especially talking to the very insurgency we are fighting - is downright crazy. And a terrible sell-out.


Wednesday was a watershed day for assessing the level of danger this country is now in. Here is the latest:

CIA Director Porter Goss - a Bush ally and appointee - on Wednesday told Congress that,"It may only be a matter of time before Al Qaeda or another group attempts to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons".

Goss and other intelligence leaders also warned of infiltrations across the Mexican border. Intelligence that "strongly suggests" that Al Qaeda operatives have considered using the Mexican border as an entry point was cited in written testimony by Adm. James M. Loy, the deputy secretary of homeland security.
He added, "Several Al Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons."

And, as for Iraq, Goss said that the war in Iraq had served as a useful recruiting tool for Islamic extremists. He warned that anti-American extremists who survive the war were likely to emerge with a high level of skills and experience, and could move on to build new terrorist cells in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.

Meanwhile, over in Pakistan, the American general in charge of the search for Osama Bin Laden, founder and head of Al Qaeda, said the search along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border may be in the “wrong place.” He said it is now possible Bin Laden is living in a “major city” inside Pakistan.

Our intelligence leaders also warned of the “missing” nuclear material in the former Soviet Union "there is sufficient material unaccounted for so it would be possible for those with know-how to construct a nuclear weapon."

Let us put these pieces together:

1) Al Qaeda is alive and well. Yes, since 9/11 we have hurt them and captured or killed some of their mid-level leaders. But, like the Mafia, new leaders quickly rise through the ranks to replace the dead ones.

2) Al Qaeda is obviously lurking and planning another attack on the USA.

3) Our pathetic border security - and Bush’s ill-advised pseudo-amnesty for illegals - only makes it even easier for illegals to cross the porous Mexican border.

4) Contrary to the pablum coming out of DC, the war in Iraq is not “draining the swamp” and keeping the bad guys over there instead of attacking us over here. In fact, our Iraq campaign has increased the recruiting and effectiveness of the anti-American insurgency which now will spread throughout the Middle East.

5) Osama Bin Laden is still at large - despite the Bush promise to “get him dead or alive.” Whatever happened to that solemn promise made repeatedly to us after the 9/11 massacre? Where is the presidential push for capturing or killing Bin Laden that we saw work so effectively in taking down Saddam Hussein’s regime?

6) There is clearly the possibility that “loose nukes” are out there - and maybe the Russians - or rogue Russians - sold them to the highest bidder.

Conclusions: The so-called War on Terror has devolved into a political mish-mash of contradictory policies.

How can we protect ourselves here at home if our entire southern border leaks like a sieve and the White House says it is OK to break the law and come into the country, thus giving easy cover to Al Qaeda infiltrators?

How can we fight the murderers who committed 9/11 - Osama Bin Laden and his fellow fundamentalist Islamic fanatics - if we don’t try to decapitate their leader while he continually taunts us with audio and video tapes?

How can the war in Iraq ever be a success if, in fact, it breeds thousands more committed jihadists dedicated to killing Americans?

How can we get the rest of the world to help us find and recover loose nuclear materials before it is too late if our President and Administration make it a policy to insult and blast every foreign leader who does not “go along” with our policy? The “you are either with us or against us” arrogance is undermining the War on Terror and making us even more vulnerable.

This Administration needs to get its eye back on the ball - and fast. Sure, Social Security needs a fix down the line. But will we even have a country by the time Social Security is fixed - or will we be buried under a pile of radioactive rubble while Middle Eastern barbarians dance with joy in the streets?


It’s Valentine’s Day - a day for love. So let’s list all the things we love:

• I love the goodness and sweetness we all find in so many people - especially when you really need it.

• I love music - especially the Eagles, Michael McDonald, the Bee Gees, Frank Sinatra, Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes and so many, many others.

• I love God - and knowing that He has his hand on my shoulder and is guiding me.

• I love the idealism of this country - the notion that we can help make life better for others. (Just look at the millions donated to help the tsunami victims!)

• I love Hope - hope that things can and will get better. Without hope, we have nothing.

• I love cats - all of them!

• And I love dogs, too (don’t forget to watch the Westminister Kennel Club Dog Show tonight and tomorrow afternoon and night on USA cable!)

• I love scientific breakthroughs that are making so many lives so much better. And I love the thousands and thousands of young scientists devoting their lives to alleviating suffering.

• I loved a recent grade school reunion - grades 1-8 - and how much my childhood friends were just the same and hadn’t changed at all. They were - and still are - wonderful people!

• I love writing these columns and exchanging emails with you readers! I even love those of you who criticize me!!! It is fun exchanging ideas and different sides of the issues.

• I especially love our abandoned American Prisoners of War - knowingly left behind in Vietnam and Laos - and some of whom were ‘transferred’ to the Soviet Union. We can still bring them home - alive - and we must. And I do not love our government which has purposively ignored, forgotten and covered-up this ongoing disaster.

• And I love those who remain loyal and steadfast in trying to bring these men home alive - ASAP!

• I love our soldiers on duty today overseas. What sacrifices they are making! And their families here at home, too. Heroes all!!! And we all should respect and love them - even if some oppose the mission.

• I love Pope John Paul II - for his major accomplishment: helping to end Soviet Communism without shots being fired. He was truly sent by God - after the strange death of Pope John Paul I after only 30 days in office - to have a different mission. Instead of reforming the Church, this Pope’s mission was to use his unique background as a man who grew up under both Naziism and Soviet domination to bring about the peaceful end of the Soviet Union. And he did it!

• I love ‘24' on Monday nights on Fox. Best show on television. Period.

• I love nurses and others in hospitals and doctors’ offices who are kind and helpful. They are the heart of our health care system - and always will be.

• I love my family - my mother, sisters, brothers and relatives - even when I sometimes disagree with them.

• I love my friends because life without friends is no life at all.

• I love baseball - playing it, watching it and reading about it. What a game!

• I love the fact that the Big Three TV network news divisions have been brought down by cable news, talk radio and the Internet. Thank God!

• I love much, much more but enough for today.

• Oh, I also love you for taking the time to read this!


Once all the well-intentioned euphoria over last week’s Iraqi elections subsides, saner heads are going to wake up and realize a glaring miscalculation: the real winner of that election might be America’s Number One Muslim Enemy: Iran.

As predicted in this space over a year ago, President Bush’s shifting rationales for invading Iraq - from WMD to toppling Saddam to ‘imposing’ democracy - were going to lead to a ‘loose alliance’ between our 25-year-long enemies in Tehran and a new fundamentalist Muslim government in Baghdad. And that indeed appears to be the case. Just look at last Thursday’s lead paragraph in the New York Times story about the early election count:

“BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 3 - Preliminary election returns released Thursday by Iraqi authorities showed that 72 percent of the 1.6 million votes counted so far from Sunday's election went to an alliance of Shiite parties dominated by religious groups with strong links to Iran. Only 18 percent went to a group led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite who favors strong ties to the United States. Few votes went to Sunni candidates.”

If these results hold - and they appear to be holding as of the latest numbers released over the weekend - what does this potentially mean for the United States:

1) All during the 1980's - as Iran and Iraq fought a brutal war against each other - US policy was to remain neutral but to secretly assist Saddam’s Iraq as a way to block Iran from gaining traction in Arab territory. President Reagan even dispatched an emissary to meet Saddam to assist his war effort. His name? Donald Rumsfeld. Washington - correctly - felt the best policy was to have these two Muslim enemies ‘drain’ each other. And for 10 years they did. Neither gained a toehold in the other’s territory and this stalemate was what Washington hoped for.

But Saddam mis-read our covert support in his war against the Ayatollahs in Iran and invaded Kuwait believing we’d allow it.

That began the 13-year hot and cold war between Baghdad and Washington that ultimately led to our March 2003 invasion and the end of Saddam’s brutal rule.

Why did Washington want the Iran and Iraq War to ‘drain’ each other? Because we viewed both as evil regimes - and Tehran had been our enemy since the November 1999 capture of our Embassy and the seizing of our hostages. We did not want Tehran encroaching into Arab territory - especially not into Iraq with its huge oil reserves. The thought of Iran and Iraq under one rule and controlling the largest combined oil reserves in the world sent shivers up the spines of DC’s leadership.

Now - after our invasion, not finding even an eyedropperful of any WMD substance, and toppling the Baath Party from power in Baghdad - we have just brought about the first elections in Iraq since 1950. And the result may, in fact, be exactly what we did not want: Iran and Iraq in a ‘loose alliance’ of fundamentalism and controlling a large share of the world’s oil reserves.

2) Iran is the Capitol of Terrorism - or Fundamentalist Islam. Since our March 2003 invasion Iran has been fueling the insurgency, funding the Iraqi Ayatollahs who want to return Iraq to a fundamentalist regime, and shoveling tons of money to the parties and campaigns that won last week’s election.

Why did they do this?

Because they can win through the ballot box what they could not win on the battlefield in their decade-long war with Saddam: control of most of Iraq.

Bush’s father knew this at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991. When many were screaming for a US-led push up to Baghdad to finish off Saddam, Bush resisted because he knew the result would ultimately be a power vacuum filled by the most powerful neighbor: Iran.

And now his son has foolishly - with no forethought whatsoever - helped bring about our worst nightmare.

It is not inconceivable to imagine this combined oil behemoth manipulating oil prices - or even duplicating the late 1970's oil shortages - and causing huge economic problems for the West.

Plus, this new ‘entity’ will soon try to export its brand of Muslim Fundamentalism throughout the oil-rich Arab states - perhaps to next-door Saudi Arabia next. Ryadh is powerless to prevent an invasion from Iran/Iraq - especially now that they have basically expelled all US military forces.

Meanwhile the US has done absolutely nothing to develop a new form of energy - like hydrogen fuel cells - so as to make us independent of these enemies.

Have you noticed that we import our oil almost entirely from enemies or potential enemies: Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico? When there is ‘regime change’ in one of these nations we are that much closer to being under their thumb.

And for all of us who champion democracy as the cure-all to all problems, let me ask you this question: if elections were held in Saudi Arabia and Egypt as President Bush called for last week, who do you think would win?

Answer: Osama Bin Laden, who is by far the most popular figure in these Arab lands. This is precisely why these regimes do not have elections!

Does democracy look so good to us when the result is the election of an avowed enemy of the United States?

Conclusion: our policy has been poorly conceived - sort of made up as we went along by an administration that did not look ahead or look back into the history of the region.

Thus we have helped bring about a result we will rue for decades to come.