I find this rant by BBC World Service and Global News director Richard Sambrook amusing. He argues that U.S. news agencies “wrapped themselves in the flag” and didn’t ask the tough questions about the Bush administration’s reasons for going to war in Iraq. My greatest amusement because Sambrook was BBC’s news director when the Beeb claimed Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government had “sexed up” an Iraq intelligence dossier knowing the information was false. It turns out that the Beeb, not the British government had sexed up its report.

Here’s a little message to Sambrook, he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. And Sambrook knows that the international community wasn’t going to do anything about Saddam, ever, especially because with many people on the take with the corrupt food for oil program.

I respect and commend Slate for publishing which candidate all of their writers and editors are going to vote for, but it shows how leftist their magazine is. It’s no wonder I disagree with the magazine so often.

I would have thought that having Nader in the race would take more votes from Kerry than from Bush, but according to the polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics, when there is a 3-way race, it is Bush 48.7, Kerry 46.7, Nader 1.2, but in a 2-way race it is Bush 49.0, Kerry 46.4.

This is probably a meaningless artifact of the results being within the margin of error, but it’s interesting nevertheless.

This is the next XM radio I want. I’m not going to pay $350 for it, so I’ll have to wait for a while, but a completely portable XM radio would be great.

More info here.

Environmentalists hate the poor. What other conclusion should we draw from article like this?

According to the Brainiacs at the Guardian:

Last week G2 launched Operation Clark County to help readers have a say in the American election by writing to undecided voters in the crucial state of Ohio. In the first three days, more than 11,000 people requested addresses. Here is some of the reaction to the project that we received from the US.

Be sure to read the reactions. Such as this one:

My dear, beloved Brits,
I understand the Guardian is sponsoring a service where British citizens write to Americans to advise them on how to vote. Thank heavens! I was adrift in a sea of confusion and you are my beacon of hope!

Feel free to respond to this email with your advice. Please keep in mind that I am something of an anglophile, so this is not confrontational. Please remember, too, that I am merely an American. That means I am not very bright. It means I have no culture or sense of history. It also means that I am barely literate, so please don’t use big, fancy words.

Set me straight, folks!
Dayton, Ohio

Or this one:

Hey England, Scotland and Wales,
Mind your own business. We don’t need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidental election. If it wasn’t for America, you’d all be speaking German. And if America would have had a president, then, of the likes of Kerry, you’d all be goose-stepping around Buckingham Palace. YOU ARE NOT WANTED!! Whether you want to support either party. BUTT OUT!!!
United States

Check out the Daily Recyler for one of my favorite political ads ever, Ronald Reagan’s “There’s a Bear in the Woods” ad as well as Bush’s new “Wolves” ad. Both are very good attack ads.

Check out this post on Frank J.’s blog for my favorite political ad yet.

Read what Charles Krauthammer has to say about John Kerry’s foreign policy:

The centerpiece of John Kerry’s foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our aid, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this.

The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face is unlikely to so thrill the allies that French troops will start marching down the streets of Baghdad. Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just being cynical in pledging to bring in the allies, knowing that he has no way of doing it. Or you can believe, as I do, that he means it.

He really does want to end America’s isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines.

Check out this picture and remind me why I live in Virginia.