I will be filling in for Dan Yorke on WPRO in Providence from 3-7 PM this afternoon. Among the items up for discussion:

Peter Wehner writes about Sen. Larry Craig and hypocrisy in the National Review. Susan Estrich blasts Craig for his hypocrisy. Sources tell CNN it is likely that Craig will resign, perhaps as soon as today.

Victor Davis Hanson says we should hold off on bombing Iran. I agree entirely.

The Anglican Church moves closer to a schism over homosexuality, as two dissident American priests are consecrated as Bishops in Kenya and will come back home to serve conservative Anglicans who are at odds with their local leadership. In a related matter, a judge in Iowa has overturned that state's ban on gay marriage.

When it comes to the Iraq War, the crux of the matter is this...we are fighting another limited war, and Americans prefer total war or no war at all.

Sen. Harry Reid signals he is now open to some compromise about congressional action to end the Iraq War.

Bill Kristol savages the Washington Post for their characterization of a GAO report to Congress about the failure of the Iraqi government to reach many of its goals.

A film that paints American soldiers as monsters wows them in Venice.

Pat Buchanan is skeptical about our ability to win the ideological war against al Qaeda and their ilk. If Buchanan is correct, and the Islamists are able to tap into religious belief mixed with nationalism, then it is certainly possible that we could lose. If, however, the extreme form of Islam that is being offered by al Qaeda is found to be repellent to ordinary Muslims (as I think is the case in parts of Iraq), then we have a fair chance to defeat them, if not eliminate them entirely.

Jeff Jacoby says that good news out of Iraq is bad news for the Democrats. Politically, he is quite right. To appease their rabid, anti-war wing, mainstream Democrats must hew to the line that the Iraq War is a blunder and a failure and the only right move now is to get out as soon as possible.

A Marine Corporal and veteran of the Iraq War makes an argument for resumption of the military draft. It's a pretty good argument.

Harold Meyerson says that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is being unfairly criticized for failure to hold Iraq together, since Meyerson does not believe that is possible. He may be right.

H.D.S. Greenway says when considering what to do about Iraq, the lesson of Vietnam is to cut and run. Here is another opinion column echoing that belief.

Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) gets caught in a men's room sex sting.

Scott Rasmussen says the media analysis of the GOP Presidential race so far is off base. I certainly agree with his main point, which is that most of the potential primary and caucus voters have not started paying attention, as of yet. Here in NH, we've just started the process, as school is about to start. The folks at the Giuliani campaign seem to understand the real start date of this process, as I have received three slick direct-mail pieces from them in the last week. Well done, folks.

Will there always be an England? Cal Thomas doesn't think so.

America in decline. It's an old story, repeated again and again over more than 200 years. Of course, it has never yet been true.

The new President of France states the truth. Unless diplomacy prevails, either we face an Iran with "The Bomb", or we bomb Iran. Both outcomes will lead to terrible consequences. I hope that France will join with her allies in using every means of pressure available to convince the leaders of Iran to halt their drive for nuclear weapons. When that fails, as I believe it will, I hope France (and our other allies) will stand with us when we sanction the Iranians for their efforts (via the UN, as well as economically). Perhaps this will work, although I expect that it will not. Unfortunately, though, I have come to the conclusion that we must not use military force against the Iranians, unless they attack us obviously and directly. The American people are tired of inconclusive wars, and will not support widening an already intractable conflict.

Hollywood is making some war movies, with Iraq and Afghanistan as the subject matter, and Jonathan Foreman is certain they will not portray American soldiers as "the good guys".

The NFL has suspended Michael Vick indefinitely. Read the plea deal. I hope the judge throws the book at him. Colbert I. King points out that, among other things, Vick is a liar.

So, is the President's interpretation of the Vietnam War the correct one? Bill Kristol, of course, thinks it is. But, of course, he didn't fight in that war, so his views can be discounted. Andrew Bacevich, who did fight in Vietnam and who has lost a son to the Iraq War, is critical of the President's view. He has the moral credibility of sacrifice, so shouldn't his view hold greater weight? Perhaps, but here is the interpretation of another man who fought in Vietnam, and who has a son fighting in Iraq, and who is no friend of the President. His name is James Webb. I'm with him on this one.

Meanwhile, as all of Washington anticipates the report to be issued by General Petraeus next month, the Washington Post is reporting that the President does not plan to make any changes after the report is issued.

Is Fidel Castro dying? There are rumors to that effect swirling about Miami, being denied, of course, by Cuban officials.

Ralph Peters, now in Iraq, says that while Sen. John Warner is a statesman and a patriot, he is wrong about Iraq.

At least one Briton says his country must stay the course in Iraq.

Howard Dean and the folks at the DNC have figured out what I figured out some time ago, that the only way to restore some order to the chaotic Presidential selection process is to begin denying delegates to states that defy the rules, like Florida.

Here's a surprise. The government of Turkey is condemning the decision by the ADL to label the massacre of Armenians by the Turks during (and just after) World War I as "genocide".

"I felt like I was floating outside my body". We've all heard or read about the claim, oftentimes made by people who encounter a near-death experience. Is it the soul starting to leave the body? Science says no, as they can now replicate the experience in the laboratory.

More reasons not to like the "surge", according to the New York Times. But, "Iraqi Stability Growing" is the headline in the Washington Times. A great American once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". True then about America, true today, about America and Iraq.

Of course, now that a senior GOP Senator is calling for a limited troop withdrawal from Iraq, it may not matter whether the surge is working or not.

Charles Krauthammer believes that, despite the rhetoric, there is an emerging consensus about Iraq that is developing in Washington.

Some Iraq War veterans take issue with the conclusions of those soldiers from the 82nd whose op-ed piece appeared in the NYT on Sunday.

A new report will be critical of the Iraqi PM. You think?

Blackfive has this post on the soldiers' op-ed in the Sunday NYT. Here is another view.

The President says a "Free Iraq" is within reach, if we don't cut and run. The NYT questions his reading of history.

George Will believes the September report expected from General Petraeus will not change any partisan minds in Washington. I believe he is right.

Mike Dukakis has a plan for the Democrats in '08. It's not a bad plan. Meanwhile, both national party committees have lost control over the nominating process. If they are ever to get it back, they must recognize on important fact, which is that the delegate selection process is no longer seen as important. State legislatures now recognize that the national media spotlight afforded to the early primary and caucus states is far more important than the number of delegates sent to a national convention that, by the time it is held, decides nothing of importance. That is the fact which is driving the rush to front-load primaries. If the RNC and DNC wish to stop this process, then they must begin to sanction states that jump outside their guidelines by the denial of all delegates. In fact, each party's governing body should set up an exact calendar, ordering each state party to hold it's delegate selection process on particular dates and asserting that any process held outside those guidelines are simply "beauty contests" that have no bearing on the number of delegates selected for each candidate. In fact, it might not be a bad idea to take all state involvement out of the picture by holding delegate selection caucuses, rather than primaries, thereby eliminating the state election apparatus from what is supposed to be a party function. Undemocratic? Perhaps. But not chaotic, which is the situation as it stands today.

It looks like we will have a GOP primary in the NH 1st Congressional District.

Jeff Jacoby writes about the Armenian genocide in today's Globe.

Also in the Globe, Derrick Jackson writes about Michael Vick, and the fact that cruelty to dogs isn't confined to dogfighting enterprises.

A Taliban honcho says Osama bin Laden is still alive. Of course, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

RAF Jets intercept a Russian "Bear" bomber. Ahhh....just like the good old days.

Ralph Peters is now in Iraq, and he interviews General Petraeus.

The French now want to be part of the solution in Iraq. It's about time, and very much a welcome development. To quote the last line of the article,

Or, as the left-leaning Le Monde put it, “It’s time to stop lecturing the Americans about their errors and start contributing to a solution.”

Amen, Brother.

Robert Samuelson and Barbara Ehrenreich write about the credit crunch, from different perspectives, of course.

Now Michigan is getting in on the act, as their legislators consider a proposal to move their primary up.

Boston Globe columnist Bob Ryan has some thoughts on the Michael Vick dogfighting case.

Hurricane Dean has slammed into Mexico. Fortunately, its main fury apparently is being spent on a sparsely populated part of that country.

Ralph Peters has some thoughts on today's soldiers and Marines as he lives among them while they wait to go into Iraq once again. As a fellow Cold War soldier, I share his perspective to a certain degree.

In Germany, a reconsideration of the legacy of Prussia.

James Carroll has some questions for Hillary Clinton. If he finds comfort in any of her answers, then you can expect she will lose in November of 2008.

Bruce Bawer has a lengthy article about what he calls "the Peace Racket". It makes for interesting reading.

Richard Miniter finds out some enlightening facts about the so-called "Baghdad Diarist", and has this piece about how The New Republic got suckered by him.

Robert Novak sat down with former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and writes this column about his conversation and what is happening behind the scenes in the struggle for Pakistan.

A group of soldiers, returning from a deployment in Iraq, write an op-ed piece in today's New York Times, that essentially backs the position of the Times, that we should withdraw from Iraq. In The Times of London, this article casts doubt on the character of General Petraeus. The efforts being made by so many inside the MSM, here and elsewhere, to ensure a defeat in Iraq, are prodigious, indeed. And, as regular readers know, I believe they will succeed in their efforts. The initial price will be paid by others, of course, although I suspect that, in the long run, we will all pay a price.

Mark Steyn, writing about the murder of three young people in Newark, asks an excellent question.

Some U.S. officials believe that the British face a rout as they try to leave Southern Iraq. Certainly, the Shiite militias, criminal gangs, and the Iranians operating in the area will make every effort to make it look like one.

What boys without fathers need can often be found in a gang, according to this piece.

Want a Muslim Reformation? Be careful what you wish for, writes Diana Muir.

Michael Ledeen says the Iranians are feeling the heat...from their own people.

John Burns of the New York Times talks to General Petraeus.

As for the resignation of Karl Rove, and his legacy, I have only this to say. Talk of his legacy is premature, at best. We cannot now know whether or not Rove achieved any of his long-term political goals, especially the construction of a "permanent" Republican majority. We cannot even know if the Bush Presidency will be considered a success, failure, or something in-between. Rove is inextricably linked to George W. Bush. If Bush's Presidency is considered a failure, even a disaster, then the man who was most responsible for its electoral success will share some of the blame. If, on the other hand, historians in the future look back and praise the decisions made by George W. Bush and laud the reforms in doctrines and institutions that resulted from his administration, then Rove will be seen as a man who, in large measure, was responsible for electing him and, therefore, deserves part of the credit for his accomplishments.

Michael Medved says that, in today's Hollywood, portraying Mormon terrorism is safer than portraying Islamic terrorism.

A mud volcano rises off Trinidad. I had never heard of a mud volcano before. Pretty cool (er, hot, actually).

John Robb writes about the coming urban terror. Pretty scary.

First, Entercom in Boston got involved in a contract dispute with their popular WRKO afternoon host Howie Carr, which will almost certainly result in Carr's eventual departure. Now, they have "locked out" their popular WEEI morning team of "Dennis and Callahan". I'm glad I'm not working in their building today.

Karl Rove talks about why he is leaving the White House at the end of the month.

Robert Novak writes about the House of Corruption (hint...it's on Capitol Hill).

In Pakistan, the political situation seems to be deteriorating, which may be the real reason President Musharraf will not attend a meeting in Afghanistan.

In Iraq, as the British prepare to leave Basra, the situation there seems also to be deteriorating.

The Presidential primary process continues to get more complex, as South Carolina's GOP will move its primary up, and NH is expected to follow suit. More here, and here. Want the simple explanation? There are no sanctions that could be imposed by the national party committees that can deter the actions of state legislatures from moving their primary or caucus dates. The most the DNC or RNC can do is deny a state's delegates a seat at the national convention. Since nothing of substance is decided at these conventions, political leaders on the state level know that there is nothing to lose, and much to gain, by moving their primary or caucus up. So, expect this behavior to continue. Nothing short of Congressional action will stop this merry-go-round from continuing to turn and, last I checked, members of Congress serve the interests of their states and districts.

Jack Jacobs doesn't think much of a plan that would launch an investigation into the death of every soldier we lose in war.

Stephen Lang, an actor whose work I admire greatly, has a one-man show about Medal of Honor winners, which receives praise in this op-ed in the Wall St. Journal.

Can the GOP pull it out in 2008? This op-ed in the Telegraph of the UK gives some evidence of that possibility.

LESSONS FROM THE STORY OF THE BAGHDAD DIARIST

The Army says the New Republic's stories, written by a soldier serving in Iraq, are false. The Weekly Standard has been making the assertion that the stories were false from the beginning, backed by a number of bloggers, and they say that the soldier in question, Private Beauchamp, has said he made them up, speaking under oath to Army investigators. One Iraq War veteran, writing in Slate, takes a measured view of the situation. My view? In war, atrocities happen. I am reminded of the story, from WWII, of the American soldiers, leaving Europe to head back home after the German surrender, who were given a survey which asked, "Describe any atrocities you have seen". One soldier supposedly turned to another and asked, "Do they mean ours or theirs"? As a former soldier myself (although only of the peacetime variety) I cannot discount on its face any story that shows soldiers behaving badly. I have seen many instances of bad, even immoral, behavior. Wartime veterans have told me stories of American troops behaving badly (ask any WWII veteran who served in an Army or Marine unit that saw ground combat if he ever saw or heard about enemy prisoners being summarily shot). So, it is not that Private Beauchamp's tales are impossible to believe. What is bothersome about this situation is how The New Republic allowed itself to succumb too easily to the belief that American soldiers would behave badly, without doing the really difficult work of checking the facts thoroughly. I can only surmise that the magazine's editors simply believe we are "the bad guys", and should withdraw from Iraq posthaste. Of course, The Weekly Standard seems to think we are "the good guys", and advocate our continued presence in Iraq. Wartime veterans will tell you that the concept of "good guys" and "bad guys" doesn't really apply in combat, which involves only "those who want to kill you" and "those who can help you stay alive" (and, unfortunately, "those who just happen to be in the way"). In the end, the Private Beauchamp/Baghdad Diarist story is less about the realities of combat, than it is about the domestic political debate about the Iraq War. The editors and writers at The New Republic, and their like-minded colleagues at other publications, wish to show the evils of this war in order to help "educate" the public to agitate for its speedy conclusion. The editors and writers at The Weekly Standard, and their like-minded colleagues at other publications, wish to "educate" the public about the good that is coming from and will come from fighting, and winning, this war, in order to sustain their morale and commitment to the fight. If you want to be a straight journalist, and an informed citizen, you need to realize that this war, like all wars, cannot be neatly plugged into concepts of "good" and "evil", since there are large measures of both to be found within it. It seems to me, therefore, that the best way to analyze it is to determine, as a citizen of the United States, whether the prosecution of this war is helping, or hurting, the national security of the nation. That process is not well served by a debate over whether or not one private and his squad mates engaged in misbehavior, however disgusting or disturbing.

An interesting piece on Mitt Romney and Mormonism in the National Review. While it will not, in my estimation, be a major factor in the race, Romney's religion will continue to be a factor, whether he likes it or not.

President Sarkozy of France gets a little perturbed at some photographers (including the AP's Jim Cole, well known to us in NH media circles) while vacationing here in the Granite State.

Michael Yon, a former soldier who has done some excellent reporting from Iraq, reminds readers why we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. Speaking of Al Qaeda, there is some evidence that a terrorist cell may be plotting here in the United States. Of course, I continue to wonder why they haven't hit us since 9/11. Are our security folks that good, or are they simply so incompetent that they have not been able to mount an operation while we've been on the offensive in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. The answer is probably a combination of the two.

Iran is executing people at a rate not seen since the early 1980s. Is Ahmadinejad consolidating his power in anticipation of the death of Ayatollah Khamenei? Or is something else going on? I haven't a clue. The problem is, I don't think the "experts" can figure it out, either.

Some thoughts on what the U.S. government will need in terms of support for the next military intervention, based on some lessons learned from the Iraq intervention. From a domestic political standpoint, I'm not sure any future administration will be able to justify any intervention that smells like a long-term commitment unless we've just suffered a devastating attack here at home.