Christopher Hitchens on the anti-war bunch.

Christopher Johnson:

I think I've finally found the reason that current antiwar opinion grates on me so much. I like to think of myself as a logical person. And antiwar statements, whoever makes them, don't even make the slightest effort to be intellectually coherent. On the one hand, every delegation that goes to Iraq, religious or not, reports on the great suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly The ChildrenTM, as a result of the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN as a result of the Gulf War. Yet, to such people, the United States and its allies may not proceed against Iraq without the approval of the very organization that slapped those sanctions on Iraq twelve years ago.

Another thing. Were the United States to be successful in this endeavor, there would obviously be no more need for sanctions on Iraq and they would be quickly removed. Yet antiwar types do not wish the United States to go to war against Iraq. Do they think that it would be better for the Iraqi people they claim to care so much about that the sanctions, which they say have done so much harm, remain in place?

Glenn on Frist and the vaccine deal.

Tax cut analogy.

Tiggers, Rabbits, and Canadians.

Canadian internment camps (yet they point the finger at US)

French Jokes.

Will the Fibbies ever be up to the job?

Korea
Howard Kurtz on South Korea.
Glenn.
A Smart Spear.
On the other hand, they don't all hate us.
Joe User, Let them go.
They rally to keep US troops.

Orson Scott Card.

Victor Davis Hansen, Korea is Not Quite Iraq:

There are lessons to be learned from all this that go all the way back to the Korean War, and should teach us the bitter wages of not achieving victory — whether in 1951 or 1991 — when it was within our grasp. Let us hope that our third glaring mistake, Vietnam, chooses to follow the Chinese, rather than the North Korean, model. We have at least learned that only one thing is worse than not confronting a bully at all — letting him slink off when he is beaten.

Do Democrats know why they lost the Senate majority? :

So much for the theory that Democrats lost the Senate in November because they had obstructed President Bush's agenda. Judging by Tom Daschle's behavior so far this year, the new Senate minority leader has concluded that the lesson of their drubbing is that Democrats weren't obstructionist enough.
...
Democrats are understandably sore about losing their majority, but rather than undertake some introspection they're jumping right back to the barricades. They apparently figure they can obstruct Mr. Bush's agenda and voters will blame Republicans who are supposed to be in control.
Maybe, but we seem to recall that's similar to the argument they made last year. Max Cleland and Jean Carnahan can testify from private life to how well it worked.

The Regulation Clinton-Hating Post

Clinton as chancellor of Oxford?:

Close, but no cigar. Bill Clinton's candidacy as Chancellor of Oxford University is facing growing opposition from dons who fear that his election would endanger the reputation of the institution and the virtue of its undergraduates.

Awwww.... he may be denied this hunting field.

A number of academics have told The Telegraph that the former President of the United States would harm "the dignity of the office" if he were chosen to succeed Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who died last weekend.
...
Growing numbers of dons, however, are arguing that Mr Clinton's sexual peccadilloes, including his affair with Monica Lewinsky, a 21-year-old White House intern, render him unsuitable for such a prestigious post.

They also argue that his lies on oath about the Lewinsky affair and his decision to award presidential pardons to a number of well-connected criminals just before he left office in January 2001 should disqualify him from the role. Dr Jeremy Catto, the Senior Dean of Oriel College and a fellow in medieval history, said: "Having Clinton as Chancellor wouldn't exactly add to the dignity of the office. Given his past record, I shouldn't think for a moment that the university's women students will be safe."

Mark Almond, a fellow of Oriel College and a lecturer in 20th-century history, added that Mr Clinton would face "endless allegations of sexual scandal"."There's bound to be trouble," Mr Almond added. "We need a woman chancellor, not a womanising chancellor.
...
Other objections to Mr Clinton include his patchy academic record - he went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar in 1968 but failed to complete his degree - and his extensive commitments in America.

His extensive commitments, or his failure to complete them?