George Will on why border control is so essential:

But control belongs at the top of the agenda, for four reasons. First, control of borders is an essential attribute of sovereignty. Second, conditions along the border mock the rule of law. Third, large rallies by immigrants, many of them here illegally, protesting more stringent control of immigration reveal that many immigrants have, alas, assimilated: They have acquired the entitlement mentality created by America's welfare state, asserting an entitlement to exemption from the laws of the society they invited themselves into. Fourth, giving Americans a sense that borders are controlled is a prerequisite for calm consideration of what policy that control should serve.

I hope congressional Republicans are listening.

John Hawkins on the "Immigration Horror Show":

Sometimes, you just have to scratch your head and wonder what goes on in the vast empty space between the ears of some of the Republicans in the Senate. For example, that sort of head scratching might happen after you saw the nightmarish concoction that the Senate Judiciary Committee just came out with. Here we are in a Senate, that has 55 Republicans -- 44 Democrats -- and 1 left leaning independent -- on an issue that is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to the conservative base, and we get a bill that gives liberals everything they want while those of us on the right get a boot in the mouth.

The long awaited shakeup begins:

White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. announced his resignation this morning after nearly 5 1/2 years as President Bush's top aide. Bush said Card will be replaced by Joshua B. Bolten, the director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Card will serve until April 14 to provide a transition period. The move could presage broader staff changes as Bolten takes over an operation hobbled by political problems heading into a crucial midterm election season.

Bush made the announcement in the Oval Office at 8:30 a.m., standing at the podium with Card to his right, Bolten to his left. The president thanked Card for his "wise counsel, his calm in crisis, his ability, his integrity, and his tireless commitment to public service" and said "he will always be my friend."

This is highly likely the first of a significant number of welcome changes coming to an administration that still finds itself unable to climb out of the low polling hole, created by a number of unfortunate events, many of which it brought on itself. Andrew Card is a good man and highly respected on both sides of the political aisle, but the White House needs a good shakeup, as well as a fresh approach in presenting itself to the public and in dealing with Congress.

The president needs to exhibit firm leadership on the immigration issue before he completely loses any substantive influence on the matter. It appears he is now becoming aware of this:

President Bush finally re-entered the immigration debate last week to appeal for civility and compassion. He's way late. The debate is already bitter and divisive, especially within the Republican Party, and it's only getting worse.

More than 200 House Republicans are on record as favoring a draconian border security measure that would make it a felony simply to be in the United States illegally, or to offer assistance - even a meal, a ride or counseling - to an illegal immigrant...

Polls suggest that the public is massively confused and ambivalent about immigration. A Quinnipiac University survey last month found that 54 percent of voters want to make it harder for illegal immigrants to work in the U.S. legally. But a Time magazine poll showed that 76 percent favor earned legalization.

This is a moment for presidential leadership. Bush has limited political capital left, but social peace is a cause worth spending it on.

From ABC News:

KABUL, Afghanistan Mar 26, 2006 (AP)— An Afghan court on Sunday dismissed a case against a man who converted from Islam to Christianity because of a lack of evidence, and he will be released soon, an official said.

"The court dismissed today the case against Abdul Rahman for a lack of information and a lot of legal gaps in the case," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the matter.

He said the case has been returned to the prosecutors for more investigation, but that in the meantime Rahman would be released.

"The decision about his release will be taken possibly tomorrow," he said.

The court, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, had been under intense international pressure to drop the case against Abdul Rahman, who faced a possible death sentence for his conversion.

A good thing, although not a surprise, as a result of the kind of pressure Afghanistan had been under in recent days, and the ramifications to U.S.-Afghanistan relations had Rahman been executed.

Put this into your information filter the next time you watch ABC News:

A top producer at ABC NEWS declared "Bush makes me sick" in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

"If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke," Green complained.

The blunt comments by Green, along with other emails obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, further reveal the inner workings of the nation's news outlets.

A friend of Green's at ABC says Green is mortified by the email. "John feels so badly about this email. He is a straight shooter and great producer who is always fair. That said, he deeply regrets the sentiment expressed in the email and the embarrassment it causes ABC News."

A man in Afghanistan who converted to Christianity could actually be executed:

The US and three Nato allies have expressed concern over reports that a Muslim convert to Christianity could face the death penalty in Afghanistan.

Abdul Rahman is charged with rejecting Islam and could be executed under Sharia law unless he reconverts.

The US made a subdued appeal for him to be allowed to practise his faith - but stressed it did not want to interfere.

Germany, Italy and Canada, which all have troops in Afghanistan, also voiced concern over Mr Rahman's plight.

Mr Rahman, 41, converted 16 years ago as an aid worker helping refugees in Pakistan. His estranged family denounced him in a custody dispute over his two children.

I can't imagine that this will actually happen, as the results for U.S.-Afghanistan relations would be catastrophic.

They won't deal directly with Iran's nuclear program, but these talks that will take place between the United States and Iran are encouraging:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Tuesday that he approves of talks between U.S. and Iranian officials on Iraq, but warned that the United States must not try to "bully" Iran.

It was the first confirmation that Khamenei, who holds final say on all state matters in Iran, is in favor of the talks.

His comments came hours after President Bush spoke in favor of such a meeting, saying American officials would show Iran "what's right or wrong in their activities inside of Iraq."

Khamenei said that "if the Iranian officials can make the U.S. understand some issues about Iraq, there is no problem with the negotiations."

Sam Nunn is a man to be taken seriously by both sides of the political aisle, and he is not enthusiastic about the nuclear deal brokered with India:

In a setback for the administration's efforts to win approval of a landmark nuclear pact with India, former senator Sam Nunn said yesterday that he has serious concerns the deal would harm the "United States' vital interest" in preventing nuclear proliferation and urged Congress to set conditions for its support.

"Congress has a duty to look at the broader framework," Nunn, a moderate and highly respected Georgia Democrat who still has broad influence in both parties on proliferation and military matters, said in an interview. "If I were still in Congress, I would be skeptical and looking at conditions that could be attached."

Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns warned lawmakers last week that congressionally mandated conditions could cause the agreement to unravel. He and other administration officials say the agreement is a groundbreaking achievement that will bring India, which has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, into the nonproliferation mainstream, while bolstering U.S.-India ties and adding jobs to the U.S. economy.

But Nunn, who was briefed on the deal by State Department officials last week, said he is concerned it would lead to the spread of weapons-grade nuclear material, unleash a regional arms race with China and Pakistan, and make it more difficult for the United States to win support for sanctions against nuclear renegades such as Iran and North Korea. Nunn is a board member of General Electric Co. -- which built nuclear power reactors in India before New Delhi conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 -- but he said he thinks the economic benefits are overstated.

In the aftermath of the UAE/ports fiasco, and the inept manner in which the administration handled that, Mr. Nunn's concerns about this deal with India are likely to be given a great deal of attention by congressional leaders of both parties.

Congress should rapidly, wholeheartedly and skeptically engage itself in this matter, and determine whether the pact is indeed a benefit to our long-term national security interests.

Bob Novak on the danger Republicans face if they choose to seperate themselves from an increasingly unpopular George W. Bush:

One of the president's top political operatives is telling the party's members of Congress that they should support Bush, not out of loyalty but for self-preservation. In 1952, Democrats in Congress, accustomed to more than 20 years in power, thought they could survive by separating themselves from Truman. Instead, Republicans swept the November elections, which might be an object lesson about abandonment of their president.

The New York Times blames almost everybody but its own shoddy reporting for its mess up on the man who really wasn't an Abu Ghraib victim.

Captain Ed notes that "The correction, quite frankly, stinks."

He claimed to be a victim at Abu Ghraib, but he wasn't:

In the summer of 2004, a group of former detainees of Abu Ghraib prison filed a lawsuit claiming that they had been the victims of the abuse captured in photographs that incited outrage around the world.

One, Ali Shalal Qaissi, soon emerged as their chief representative, appearing in publications and on television in several countries to detail his suffering. His prominence made sense, because he claimed to be the man in the photograph that had become the international icon of the Abu Ghraib scandal: standing on a cardboard box, hooded, with wires attached to his outstretched arms. He had even emblazoned the silhouette of that image on business cards.

The trouble was, the man in the photograph was not Mr. Qaissi.

Go read the whole thing.

Iran must be getting worried:

TEHRAN, March 16 -- A ranking Iranian national security official said Thursday that Iran is willing to engage in direct talks with the United States about the political future of Iraq.

In Washington, the White House said it was prepared to open discussions with Iran -- provided that the talks were restricted to Iraq-related issues.

The comments in an interview by Ali Larijani, general secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, marked a striking public shift by Iran toward direct engagement with Washington at a time when the Bush administration has become ever more outspoken about what it claims is assistance by Iran to insurgent activity in Iraq.

If the Democrats retake at least the House next November then it is highly likely - as Sen. Russell Feingold has signalled - that they full intend to begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush, for no other reason than his actions in defending this country in time of war.

Today's Opinion Journal notes that Sen. Feingold has done the country a favor in showing the Democratic hand:

Which brings us back to Mr. Feingold's public service in floating his "censure" gambit now. He's doing voters a favor by telling them before November's election just how Democrats intend to treat a wartime President if they take power.

Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America's enemies. And they want to do so not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he's abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he's been too energetic in using his powers to defend America. By all means, let's have this impeachment debate before the election, so voters can know what's really at stake.

David Frum asks: Is George W. Bush still "The Right Man?"

There are many things to say about George W. Bush, positive and negative. But with his numbers dropping into the mid-30s, and even many of his friends having to acknowledge doubts and disappointments in his performance, here is one verdict that remains true, the same that Lincoln delivered on General Grant. "He fights."

When I wrote The Right Man in 2002, I tried to do justice to the president's personality, both virtues and vices. I carefully reread that book as part of my preparation for writing this next one. It itemized so many of the faults that have had their cost over the past year: the president's sometimes over-hasty decision-making, his disinclination to ask sufficiently probing questions, his aversion to detail, the overcentralization of decision-making, his often surprisingly poor personnel decisions, his unwillingness or inability to explain himself as fully and convincingly as a president ought.

Back then, those criticisms provoked some controversy. But just as back then we needed a reality check against some of the over-worshipful coverage of this presidency, so today we need a reality check against the barrage of often recklessly unjust criticism of everything and anything this administration does.

With Republican losses a very real possibility in 2006 and 2008, we need to remember how many of the problems of today originate in the drift and weakness of the 1990s - and how many more problems would be created by a return to drift and weakness now.