Michael Scheuer:

At the CIA, Tenet will be remembered for some badly needed morale-building. But he will also be recalled for fudging the central role he played in the decline of America's clandestine service -- the brave field officers who run covert missions that make us all safer. The decline began in the late 1980s, when the impending end of the Cold War meant smaller budgets and fewer hires, and it continued through Sept. 11, 2001. When Tenet and his bungling operations chief, James Pavitt, described this slow-motion disaster in testimony after the terrorist attacks, they tried to blame the clandestine service's weaknesses on congressional cuts. But Tenet had helped preside over every step of the service's decline during three consecutive administrations -- Bush, Clinton, Bush -- in a series of key intelligence jobs for the Senate, the National Security Council and the CIA. Only 9/11, it seems, convinced Tenet of the importance of a large, aggressive clandestine service to U.S. security.

Come on Joe. It is time. Your party is walking off the cliff. It is jumping the shark. It is time for you to fulfill your destiny. It is time for you to become a Republican.

The response of Democrats to Rudy Giuliani's understandable and justifiable assertion that America would resume a defensive posture against Islamic terrorism, should Democrats regain the White House in 2008, suggests that they possess more than a little insecurity on the matter.

Rudy ought to intensify his attack against Democrats, regardless of how offensive it is to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. They and their party have only themselves to blame for such attacks. By continuing to be supportive of their Majority Leader, Harry "we're losing the war" Reid, and not calling for his ouster from that position after his contemptible and outrageous remark, they - and the Democratic party as a whole - are deserving of at least the same magnitude of attack as Rudy delivered to them yesterday.

If the Democrats wish to assure the American public that they are serious about fighting the war against Islamic extremism, and that the party will not surrender to America's enemies at the slightest hint of difficulty in that fight, then they should fire Harry Reid from his position as their leader in the Senate.

Rosie says she wasn't.

Right.

In any event, good riddance.

To save the war effort from the contemptibly defeatist and retreatist Reid-Pelosi gang, the task may fall on Joe Lieberman to change parties. He has hinted in the past that the option is not closed. The same leftists that tried to retire him last year are now fully in command of their party's leaders, as evidenced by the outrageous and cynical attempt to facilitate a defeat in Iraq by the majority Democrats in Congress. This must be offensive to Lieberman, who understands why we are fighting in Iraq, and the consequences of al-Qaeda being able to establish a complete foothold in Iraq were we to be forced by the Chamberlinian Democrats to retreat.

I believe that Joe Lieberman's threshold - his tripwire - for a potential change of party may very well have been reached. He just might make it official if Democrats insist on continuing to seriously push forth any kind of fund cutoff for the troops.

More bad news for Hillary, as if she hasn't had enough in the last couple of weeks.

...Survivor and Scandal-Handler-In-Chief. Hardly stellar qualifications for a candidate for the presidency. And even in those capacities she is less than impressive.

Rudy Giuliani spoke plainly and truthfully about the dangers that the country will face should the Democrats win in 2008. Democrats are committed to a policy of retreat and defeat for the United States. This is true now and it will be true if they win in 2008.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in the most outrageous statement likely ever uttered by a person of his rank during a time of war for the United States, last week pronounced that the United States is "losing the war" in Iraq. His statement could hardly be more damaging to the morale of the troops serving in Iraq. Reid is one of those spearheading the effort to cut funding for the troops. There can be no question that the actions of Reid, and others like him, are undercutting the war effort of the United States and are boosting the morale of the enemy. It is one thing to criticize President Bush, and there is plenty of criticism to level, but it is quite another to declare that the United States is "losing" the war. The statement is as preposterous as it is dangerous to the war effort. What could Harry Reid have possibly been thinking?

Then there was Nancy Pelosi. Her trip to the Middle East was, to put it mildly, a catastrophe. Her misstatements of fact, with regard to the peace process there, we're damaging to the overall diplomatic effort of the United States in the region. She had no business going to the Middle East. Her arguments that other members of Congress have made similar trips was ridiculous. She is the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States. She is different. Because of her rank, her statements are going to be given more weight by the leaders in the region than any statements coming out of the mouth of other Congressional visitors. Her visit was not only disastrous because of her unfortunate misstatements of fact, but because she conveyed the impression that the United States government is divided in its policy towards the Middle East. That is hardly the impression that needs to be presented at this point in time. Pelosi should have had the judgment and discretion to understand this.

I believe that the Democrats have seriously overreached, and misjudged the reason that they were put into the legislative majority last November. They were put into the majority because Americans perceived that the Republicans in Congress had run out of steam, and were not effectively bringing forth strong ideas and initiatives for the country. The country also was trying to send a message to the president that his "stay the course" mantra with regard to the war in Iraq was wearing thin. Well, the president has changed his course, and is attempting to employ a new strategy in Iraq. The Democrats, it would seem, have no desire to give that strategy a fighting chance, and see how it might play out, but rather seem to be intent upon quashing it, whatever the costs, for political gain. Yet the Democrats refuse to tell the country what their answer will be if their wishes come true, and the United States ends all operations in Iraq, and Iraq becomes immersed in a total and disastrous civil war, with al-Qaeda establishing a firm and uncontested base of operations there and the disastrous consequences for America resulting from that. It is difficult to imagine that a major political party in the United States could act in this irresponsible and dangerous manner.

The country did not put the Democrats in the majority so that the Democrats could tell the country that it is losing a war. The country did not put Democrats in the majority so that they could cut funding for American troops in time of war. And the country certainly did not put Democrats in power so that the Speaker of the House could trot over to the Middle East and convey the impression that the American government is completely divided with regard to its policy there.

Despite conventional wisdom to the contrary, the Democrats are likely in serious danger of overreading the results of last year's elections, and bringing about an electoral outcome in 2008 which is quite contrary to the outcome that they expect at this point.

And this is a surprise?

CBS ought to put an end to this debacle and reinstall Bob Schieffer in the anchor seat as soon as is practicable.

What was the public interest in airing the video, NBC?

Steve Capus claimed last week that he removed Don Imus for his insensitive and hurtful remarks. This week, in airing the killer's video, Capus proves that he has no scruples about putting anything on the air that will raise the ratings of NBC News, regardless of who he hurts or how much potential is created for another atrocity when an unbalanced individual sees the images from the video. It makes his statement last week about the removal of Imus look to be a complete and total lie.

"What exactly is the reason for not allowing professors to carry guns?"

***

And Tennessee moves to allow guns in public buildings.

Virginia Tech, as is now well known, was a gun-free zone. It wasn't required by law, but imposed by University officials.

Many states have what are called preemption clauses, whereby state law can preempt localities from imposing a law that is at variance (usually stricter) with the state's law on a certain issue, in this case firearms. It would seem to me that it would be appropriate for the the state of Virginia, should it so desire, to preempt all public universities in Virginia from arbitrarily imposing restrictions on guns that are more punitive than state law. Lawmakers should decide whether students, staff and faculty can or cannot carry deadly weapons on campus, not college officials.

Apparently sent to them by Cho Seung-Hui just after the first two killings, but prior to the other thirty.

A great blog here: "The Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog."