We don’t need this:

The Bush administration’s failure to shut down al-Qaida and its bungled efforts to rebuild Iraq have fueled the insurgency and made America more vulnerable to a nuclear attack by terrorists, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said in his latest screed against the president’s war policies.
Kennedy, in remarks prepared for delivery to George Washington University students Monday, said that by shifting attention from Osama bin Laden to Iraq, Bush has increased the danger of a ”nuclear 9-11.”

I agree with the general proposition that a number of the Bush administration’s decisions have made us more vulnerable to terrorism. And this might even include nuclear weapons, as Kennedy asserts. But unless Kennedy has specific intelligence pointing this direction, we don’t need any more people ratcheting up the national fear factor. The terrorist-related rhetoric in this campaign is spiraling out of control, as many other important national issues are ignored. I’ve criticized Bush/Cheney ’04 for some of their comments, and the same fair-and-balanced guideline applies here. Unless someone has evidence that al Qaeda has a nuclear project in the works, I think we’ve heard enough about mushroom clouds for one campaign.

A reader at War and Peace makes an excellent point: if part of the “success” in Iraq is that it has allowed us to fight the “terrorists” on the battlefield of our choosing (the so-called flypaper strategy), then why is the US pressuring neighbor states to secure their borders with Iraq? If our intent is to confront the “terrorists” in Baghdad rather than Boston, shouldn’t we want porous Iraqi borders to facilitate the terrorist’s migration into our trap?

Is it just me, or does it seem like for all the talk we’ve heard recently about the elections being the magic potion for peace in Iraq, there hasn’t been much discussion of what those elections actually mean?
No, it’s not just me:

KOPPEL: Despite the positive words from Bush and Allawi, some U.S. officials behind the scenes acknowledge more pessimism that in reality it may be difficult to go ahead with elections as early as January and, if they did, worry whether Iraqis would accept those elections as legitimate — Aaron.
BROWN: Now, the next challenge for you, having tackled this one for us, is to explain the complicated nature of the election itself how they’re — it’s not like they’re going to vote for a president and a vice president and members of Congress. They’re talking about this big block of votes.
KOPPEL: And I can give you a real quick answer. They don’t know yet. I mean a lot of these things have to be — have to be worked out. In fact, they’re thinking people would vote for a party and then the block of parties and then the parties would pick the representatives to go to parliament.
And, it is just — there are so many steps that have as yet to be ironed out. Many people are saying even if security is not an issue, how are they going to lay the groundwork for elections in four months?

So not only do we not know if the elections can be pulled off logistically, we don’t yet even know what Iraqis will be voting for.
But enough of this pessimistic talk. Freedom is on the march, provided Kerry and the terrorists step out of the way.

I go out of town for half a day and the whole blog falls apart–literally. I inadvertently let my account with the hosting company lapse yesterday. So if you stopped by and didn’t find anything here, that was the reason.
Yesterday afternoon I went to the mountains. Would you believe that in the dozens of trips I’ve made to the Smokies over the years, I have never hiked up Mount Leconte? I went up the Alum Cave Bluff trail. Not the easiest five-mile climb, but I made it without incident. Wow, what a spectacular view! I’ll post some pictures soon.

SayUncle offers would-be hostages advice on how to respond to their abductors.