Mrs. Edwards phoned in to Hardball to ask Ann Coulter to stop being mean to her husband, Democratic party presidential candidate and the kind of lawyer who gives lawyers a bad name, John Edwards. Note this is the same Elizabeth Edwards who sometimes posts at a left-wing hate site like The Daily Kos, and the same John Edwards who hired, and chose not to fire, those bigoted left-wing bloggers (warning: quotes from left-wing hate sites may contain much vulgarity) to run his campaign blog. As we've noted before, self awareness is in very short supply on the left.

Incidentally, we agree with Mrs. Edwards about Ann Coulter's comments. The death of someone's son shouldn't be fodder for jokes. But those who live in gigantic 20,000+ square foot glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

...That's the headline from an item at The Hill website. There's nothing of interest in the item, this kind of bile from the Democrats is just background noise at this point. We just thought it was nice to see them moderating their rhetoric - since the Democrats are usually comparing President Bush to Hitler, this constitutes an improvement.

Sometimes the justice system gets it right. This is one of those times.

A judge ruled Monday that no pair of pants is worth $54 million, rejecting a lawsuit that took a dry cleaner's promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" to its most litigious extreme.

Roy L. Pearson became a worldwide symbol of legal abuse by seeking jackpot justice from a simple complaint — that a neighborhood dry cleaners lost the pants from a suit and tried to give him a pair that were not his.

....

[Judge] Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay clerical court costs of about $1,000 to defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.

Certainly at the very least Mr. Pearson should be made to pay any and all costs the Chungs have incurred. The right kind of tort reform would make it much less likely that such a ridiculous lawsuit would be filed in the first place. In a truly just society, the plaintiff would never again be allowed to own a pair of pants, but no system is perfect.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made a strong defense of the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and early 2003 Sunday on Meet the Press. His arguments serve as yet more evidence that the continuing cries from the anti-victory left that "Bush lied us into war!" are nothing but cheap slander.

GEN. POWELL: I spent five days out at the CIA going over every single piece of information that was going to be in my presentation. There were a lot of other pieces of information that different people would have wanted me to use and it was all rejected. Everything in that statement was blessed by the director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet; his deputy, John McLaughlin; and all of their senior officials. They believed it, too. George has said he believed it. And so I went to the UN having dumped a lot of stuff on the side of the road because it wasn’t multiple source. It might have been right, but it wasn’t multiple source and I wouldn’t use it. And the reason you see Director Tenet sitting behind me is because I wanted to make sure and he wanted to make sure that people understood I was not making a political statement. I was making a statement of the facts as we knew them.

Now, those same facts, that same set of facts, was available to the Congress the previous fall in the National Intelligence Estimate that the Congress asked for. But I notice a lot of candidates are now saying they didn’t read it. But it was up there and they asked for it. The mobile biological laboratories was up before the Congress months before. The president used that in his State of the Union speech. So over a long period of time, the CIA and all of the other intelligence agencies of government had created a, a statement for all of us that said, one, this is a regime that has used these kinds of weapons on the past; two, they have retained the capability of making such weapons; and three—and here’s where we fell down—they have stockpiles of these weapons. And we all believed it. Our military believed it going into battle. Other governments believed it. The reality is they did not have those stockpiles. We were wrong.

Fourth point I’d like to make. Suppose that the UN sanctions had subsequently broken down. We didn’t go into a war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein was free of all UN constraints because of the collapse of the Oil for Food program. Would you believe, would anybody believe, that with the capability and with the intent he would not then go back to trying to build up those stockpiles? That’s the chance the president did not want to take, that’s the risk he did not want to take.

....

We went to war on the basis that we have a terrible regime and what makes—it’s been terrible forever. What makes it so terrible now, in the aftermath of 9/11, is that they had demonstrated that they will use these weapons. They’ve used them against their own people, they’ve used them against the enemy. They had them at the time of the first Gulf war when I was chairman. And the intelligence community said and had every reason to believe that they not only had the capability of having them again, but they have stockpiles. And that was the precipitating cause. ...

....

MR. RUSSERT: After your presentation to the United Nations and you realized the information that you’d been given was faulty, did you ever thing of resigning?

GEN. POWELL: The information was faulty, but it wasn’t faulty because people in the intelligence community were lying or trying to deceive. It was faulty because intelligence sometimes can be faulty, and it wasn’t managed properly, it wasn’t processed properly and we should have realized the inadequacy of some of our sourcing earlier. But it wasn’t venal behavior on the part of the intelligence community.

....

As we've noted before, there are good faith arguments against the invasion of Iraq, but the "Bush lied us into war!" line, employed not just by the anti-American fringe but also by most of the leadership of the Democratic party, is not one of them. It is a lie, a slander that has undermined the war effort, and continues to undermine the war effort.

But then unfortunately Powell diverges into some inanity about playing to the prejudices of "world opinion" by closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility:

GEN. POWELL: ... Guantanamo has become a major, major problem for America’s perception as it’s seen, the way the world perceives America. And if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo not tomorrow, but this afternoon. I’d close it. And I would not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system. The concern was, “Well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus.” So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And, by the way, America, unfortunately, has two million people in jail all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system. And so I would get rid of Guantanamo and I’d get rid of the military commission system and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts-martial. I would do that because I think it’s a more equitable way to do it and it’s more understandable in constitutional terms.

The objective of our foreign policy should not be to make Western European elites feel better. The idea that foreign enemy combatants captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan should be brought into U.S. domestic courts is ridiculous. U.S. domestic courts were designed to deal with violations of U.S criminal law by citizens and residents of the United States; they were not designed to deal with foreign enemy combatants captured during wartime. The notion that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be entitled to the same legal process and protections as Paris Hilton is unbelievably foolish.

We didn't find much that was interesting or surprising about this Gallup survey showing that many Americans reject the theory that humans evolved from other life forms over millions of years.

First, there seem to be some rather glaring contradictions in the results:

One such question was included in a May Gallup Panel survey:

Now thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not?

	Yes, believe in evolution	No, do not	No opinion
2007 May 21-24	49	48	2

It is important to note that this question included a specific reference to "thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth . . ." that oriented the respondents toward an explicit consideration of the implication of evolution for man's origin. Results may have been different without this introductory phrase.

With that said, Americans' responses to this question are essentially split down the middle. About half say they do believe in evolution and about half say they do not.

A second question included in a June 1-3 USA Today/Gallup poll asked about evolution side by side with a similar question about creationism:

Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think -- [ITEMS ROTATED] -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false]?

A. Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life

	Definite- ly true	Probably true	Probably false	Definite- ly false	No opinion	Total true	Total false
2007 Jun 1-3	18%	35	16	28	3	53	44

B. Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years

	Definite- ly true	Probably true	Probably false	Definite- ly false	No opinion	Total true	Total false
2007 Jun 1-3	39%	27	16	15	3	66	31

So a majority believes in young-Earth creationism, and a majority believes humans developed from less advanced lifeforms over millions of years. Obviously both cannot be true. The disparity can be explained by "probably" vs. "definitely".

But what really caught our eye was this bit of editorial comment from pollster Frank Newport:

Although many scientists accept evolution as the best theoretical explanation for diversity in forms of life on Earth, the issue of its validity has risen again as an important issue in the current 2008 presidential campaign. Two recent Republican debates have included questions to the candidates about evolution.

Evolution is an important question in the in the 2008 presidential campaign? We don't think it's a question at all, let alone an important one. And the view that it's important is based on what? The fact some journalist asked a question about it in a debate makes it an important question? Is that how it works? Seems a bit circular - Why was the question asked? Because it's important. Why is it important? Because a question was asked.

We'll be on the edge of our seats for the next debate, awaiting Senator McCain's views on quantum mechanics, or Senator Obama's take on the theory of relativity. "E=mc²? We need to get away from the divisive questions that divide America. I stand for a new kind of politics, a politics for the 21st century...."

Ruben Navarette, a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune, writes in his latest column (via Real Clear Politics)

"Let me be clear. There is nothing inherently racist or nativist about opposing illegal immigration. There are plenty of good people who just want secure borders and who could care less about the culture or language of whoever is coming across the border."

And there are plenty of good people who want secure borders and also care very much about their culture and language. Navarette implies there is something wrong with caring about the culture and language of the United States.

Why in the world anyone would believe there's something wrong with Americans caring about the culture and language of their country, Navarette doesn't say. He just hangs the innuendo out there - if you care, you're probably a racist, or a "nativist."

Daniel Henninger at the Wall Street Journal makes a similar point in an insult-strewn video of one of their editorial board meetings (quote at 2:18 in video):

"Their objection is fundamentally cultural. And they can't say that, OK."

Why can't anyone say that? What's wrong with saying that? There are many objections to massive illegal immigration of course, but the culture issue is and should certainly be one of them.

Again, there's nothing wrong with Americans wanting to preserve American culture and American language. There is nothing wrong with pressing immigrants to assimilate into American culture and learn American language. There is nothing at all racist about wanting to preserve American culture and language. Culture and language have nothing to do with race.

Why these folks think they further their cause by slandering and insulting people who disagree with them is a mystery. Thankfully, it appears to be having the opposite of their intended effect so far. But make no mistake, the amnesty bill and the insults from it's defenders haven't gone away. Hasta luego.

Via Yahoo News:

Edwards dismissed criticism of his "bumper sticker" comment as rhetoric aimed at presenting Bush critics as unpatriotic.

But of course, it goes almost without saying (or it should), no one mentioned John Edwards' patriotism. (As we've noted before, the questioning of patriotism comes almost exclusively from left toward right.)

This nonsensical knee-jerk reaction from leading Democrats complaining about having their patriotism questioned whenever anyone criticizes one of their statements is becoming so common, it may be time for a new psychological disorder listing in the DSM-IV, perhaps a variant of BDS* -- HDYQMPS: How Dare You Question My Patriotism! Syndrome.

Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama recently offered a lengthy treatise on war, terrorism, and foreign policy in Foreign Affairs (via Real Clear Politics). Herewith, a few observations about the points Mr. Obama made in the article:

"The Bush administration responded to the unconventional attacks of 9/11 with conventional thinking of the past, largely viewing problems as state-based and principally amenable to military solutions. It was this tragically misguided view that led us into a war in Iraq that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged."

Obama fails to mention that our first response to 9/11 was a military one, directed at a state-based target, the Taliban government of Afghanistan. He offers no explanation for this line, so it's difficult to assess what he means by it. This is a recurring problem in the article - there are lots of statements that seem to be used merely because he thinks they sound important or thoughtful. One could certainly argue that Iraq was the wrong military target because they weren't directly involved in the 9/11 attack, but that isn't what he's arguing here.

"In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles."

This is just a cheap cliche. Abu Ghraib was an aberration, not policy.

"...the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders."

Except apparently the well-being of innocent Iraqis, who we should abandon to al Qaeda and other jihadists.

"...Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11..."

Here Obama, like most of his fellow Democrats, exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the global nature of the Islamic terrorist threat. The war isn't only about 9/11. It is more about preventing the next attack than responding to the last one. The statement also ignores the simple fact that al Qaeda is now fighting in Iraq.

"...we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions."

Again, no mention of Afghanistan, a battle in the war on terror that Mr. Obama claims to support. We aren't trying "to impose a military solution" in Iraq (or Afghanistan), we're trying to provide a level of security that will allow the political process to go forward. We are defending democratic governments in both places from those who want to destroy them.

"The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure..."

...is to leave, regardless of the consequences. One could argue that it's not worth our effort to continue fighting in Iraq. One cannot argue that leaving will increase pressure on the insurgency, that's nonsense.

"We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda."

Leave them behind where, if not in Iraq? Which Middle Eastern nation will host this "over-the-horizon" force that will be making incursions into Iraq to strike al Qaeda? And is a "minimal" effort against al Qaeda really the strategy we need at this point? Isn't one of the complaints Democrats have made that we didn't leave enough troops in Afghanistan to get the job done?

[Empty boilerplate about "road to lasting peace in Palestine" here]

Not even worth the effort...

"Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military ..."

How "tough-minded" diplomacy differs from regular diplomacy, he doesn't say. This will be an empty threat if we bug out of Iraq, as Obama advocates.

"Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing."

i.e. we should have relied on the UN and the "international community" in Iraq, but we should "go it alone" regarding Iran. This stance is incoherent.

"Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

This is the current, failing policy. "The world" has rejected tougher sanctions on Iran. Unlike Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats, Iran's leaders don't care about the opinions and empty pronouncements from the UN.

"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale."

Except in Iraq, which has nothing to do with the war on terror, except to "root out al Qaeda" which is in Iraq. Again, this is incoherent. He wants to talk tough in the abstract while advocating defeat in the current particular case.

"We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities."

Except in Iraq, where we are currently doing all of those things. Senator Obama should be compelled to explain why this standard doesn't apply to Iraq. Will a fawning press ask a real question?

"But when we do use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others -- as President George H. W. Bush did when we led the effort to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991."

And as President George W. Bush did when we led the effort to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq in 2003.

"...we must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use."

This is clearly and obviously false. Obama is just spouting baseless talking points here. The Bush administration has pursued diplomacy and international action for many years on many fronts, regarding both North Korea and Iran. Mr. Obama knows this. He is simply not telling the truth in that statement.

"From Bali to London, Baghdad to Algiers, Mumbai to Mombasa to Madrid, terrorists who reject modernity, oppose America, and distort Islam have killed and mutilated tens of thousands of people just this decade. Because this enemy operates globally, it must be confronted globally."

Except in Baghdad, which we should simply walk away from and abandon to al Qaeda. Mr. Obama doesn't seem to be following his own arguments. He could have at least left Baghdad out of the above paragraph, to provide a little cover for the otherwise glaring inconsistencies.

"We should pursue an integrated strategy..."

...that hopefully would involve more than spouting strings of important-sounding buzzwords.

"Although vigorous action in South Asia and Central Asia should be a starting point, our efforts must be broader. There must be no safe haven for those who plot to kill Americans."

Except in Iraq .... .... .... .... .... ....

"To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar."

Everywhere but Iraq, which we should abandon. And another string of buzzwords - Democrats seem to believe they can sell any idea just by sticking the phrase "twenty-first century" in front of it. There's a heavy dose of historical revisionism here as well - Obama forgets the massive anti-American "peace" protests in Europe in the 1980s. He should also be reminded of the Democrats' willingness to abandon Central America to communism in the 1980s. Democrats were hardly staunch anti-communists in the 1970s and 1980s. Somebody should buy the senator a copy of Mona Charen's excellent book Useful Idiots.

[Several paragraphs of empty rhetoric, listing a bunch of countries and regions and promising more cooperation, alliances, partnerships...twenty-first century, blah, blah, blah...a buzzword extravaganza.]

[Global warming boilerplate here]

"As the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, America has the responsibility to lead ... China will soon replace America as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases."

Good. Then maybe the blame-America-first crowd can leave us alone for a change (fat chance). We can teach Al Gore Chinese and send him over there.

"By 2050, global demand for low-carbon energy could create an annual market worth $500 billion. Meeting that demand would open new frontiers for American entrepreneurs and workers."

Great. With such a massive financial incentive, there's no need for a President Obama to use any tax dollars to create more.

"Our global engagement cannot be defined by what we are against; it must be guided by a clear sense of what we stand for. We have a significant stake in ensuring that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow."

Except Iraqis, who should be abandoned to fear and want. Talk is cheap, senator.

"Citizens everywhere should be able to choose their leaders in climates free of fear."

Except in Iraq, where we should have left Saddam Hussein unmolested. If Obama had his way, Iraqis would still be living under the butcher Saddam Hussein, with no hope for democracy, as they have now.

"...the United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need."

Ah yes, the liberal answer to everything - throw more of other people's money at the problem.

"As President Kennedy said in his 1961 inaugural address, 'To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.' I will show the world that America remains true to its founding values. We lead not only for ourselves but also for the common good."

Kennedy committed US troops to fight communism in Vietnam. The Democrats later violated promises to provide continued support to the South after 1975, leading to mass killing in South Vietnam and the surrounding region. Which path does Obama have in mind? His views on Iraq suggest the latter.

"Ultimately, no foreign policy can succeed unless the American people understand it and feel they have a stake in its success ..."

Ultimately, no policy can succeed if those in the opposition political party work tirelessly for its failure after themselves voting to implement it.

"It was not all that long ago that farmers in Venezuela and Indonesia welcomed American doctors to their villages and hung pictures of JFK on their living room walls, when millions, like my father, waited every day for a letter in the mail that would grant them the privilege to come to America to study, work, live, or just be free."

What in the world is he talking about? This is pure fantasy, or pure dishonesty, take your pick. It is true today that millions hunger to come to America. Perhaps Mr. Obama is somehow unaware of the current immigration debate taking place in the U.S. Senate and the nation. This fatuous statement alone may disqualify the man from the presidency.

"This is our moment to renew the trust and faith of our people -- and all people -- in an America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more."

Except in Iraq, which should be abandoned to immediate evils, if Senator Obama has his way.