Here and here.

Commentary later.

Proprieters of websites that highlight Hollywood anti-war idiocy are getting death threats from “peace” activists.

And starting to get back in the swing of things…

Can’t pass this one up. Burt Rutan has said repeatedly that once the X-Prize was funded, he would go after it. He developed the Proteus aircraft several years ago for a different purpose, but there have always been rumors that it might serve as the first stage for a suborbital vehicle. The rumors have finally been born out.

They made an announcement today. This will be a big boost in the credibility of others going after this market.

OK, I’m putting this one up because I won’t be able to do it tomorrow, which will be the tenth anniversary of Waco, and the eighth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. I’m not sure the full truth has yet been told about either.

I’m temporarily burned out, have a lot of other things that need doing, and I’m going out of town for the weekend. See you Monday.

I just heard Patti Ann Brown on Fox News refer to Pfc. Lynch as…Pfc. Lynch. No Jessica.

If you read me regularly, you’ve already read it–it’s a combination of this post, and this one.

If not, you can find it here.

Glenn still thinks that the assault weapons bill is bad news for Bush, because of this WorldNetDaily article. I emailed him about it, but I didn’t post first so he had nothing to link to. Here’s what I emailed him:

That article actually makes my earlier point. Note the wording:

“many gun owners say they’ll dump Bush in 2004 and vote for someone else if he signs new legislation extending the prohibition.”

I never disputed that–I’d be pretty angry if he actually signs legislation, but I still don’t believe that the legislation will ever get to his desk, so the point is probably moot. And while it’s irritating to hear him give it lip service, I don’t think that very many gun owners are going to risk putting in a president who will actually fight to get the ban extended (or in that case, renewed), which is probably exactly what the effect of not voting for Bush would be.

Here’s another key quote from the piece:

“I will not vote for [Bush] if this ban is in place by Election Day,” one WND reader said. “I am a Republican who will vote for a Democrat if I have to, if they fight against this bill. All of my conservative, gun-owning friends are exactly the same as me.”

Again, it doesn’t matter, because the ban won’t be in place by election day. It will have died a well-deserved, albeit belated, death.

Hezbollah is now threatening to target Americans.

What?!

I thought that it was just a political party.

This article is disturbing on several levels.

Hezbollah’s renewed focus on America has sharpened the long-standing debate among U.S. officials over whether the United States can, and should, go after the group. Some believe that a showdown has been overdue since 1983, when the group blew up the U.S. Embassy and a Marine barracks in Beirut. The attacks killed more than 300 people.

But any offensive would be fraught with political, diplomatic and economic risks for the United States, some officials say. Hezbollah’s close ties with Iran and Syria ? the major power broker in Lebanon ? underscore the complexities of pressing the war on terrorism when it involves groups backed by governments, they note.

Gee, I thought that we came up with the template for that one with the Taliban. And why, in light of what we now know, can’t we use the Marine barracks bombing as a justification for war? Is there some kind of statute of limitations?

Though U.S. counter-terrorism officials for decades have regarded Iran in particular as a key player in international terrorism, successive administrations have concluded that they had few viable options in dealing with Tehran, said Roger Cressey, a senior counter-terrorism official with the National Security Council in the Clinton and Bush administrations who recently left the White House.

No mention of what those “few viable options” are. It seems to me that the main difference between Iraq and Iran (other than the former’s sheer brutality) is the fact that the Iranian government hasn’t been stupid enough to invade a neighbor and have UN resolutions passed against it that it could violate. Other than that, it fits the pattern–a dictatorial regime that harbors terrorists, and one that its people would largely like to see the back of.

With thousands of well-trained, well-armed and highly disciplined soldiers, and thousands of missiles and other armaments, Hezbollah could pose a more potent threat than even Al Qaeda, several top U.S. officials have warned.

“I’ll tell you that Hezbollah, as an organization with capability and worldwide presence, is its equal, if not a far more capable, organization,” CIA Director George J. Tenet testified to Congress this year. “I actually think they’re a notch above in many respects” in part because of the group’s ties with Iran, he said.

What that says to me is that it’s all the more urgent that we do something about it, even at the short-term risk of stirring up a rattler’s nest.

U.S. officials said it is too early for an administration still caught up in the war in Iraq and its aftermath to formulate any new policies on Hezbollah, but top Bush administration officials publicly warned Syrian President Bashar Assad this week against supporting terrorism or sheltering fleeing Iraqi officials. Syria has denied giving refuge to officials of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Really? They were so busy thinking about Iraq that no one has given any thought to the follow through? I sincerely hope that those “U.S. officials” are mistaken.

As usual, the folks at Foggy Bottom seem to lack feck, to the point that even a Democrat is appalled.

When members of the House international terrorism subcommittee recently asked what the administration is doing about the threat, Assistant Secretary of State Earl Anthony Wayne said: “We regularly dialogue with our partners who we think might have [a] more forgiving attitude toward Iran [and] will continue to do so until they change their policies on terrorism, on weapons of mass destruction, on human rights within their own country.”

“So they can expect harshly worded letters?” retorted Rep. Brad Sherman (D- Sherman Oaks), the panel’s ranking Democrat. “That’s pretty much the Clinton administration approach.

“Other than the fact that we’re going to bad-mouth them, what else might we do to the government in Tehran?” Sherman asked. “Anything that might even cost them a nickel?”

“…the Clinton administration approach.” I love that, particularly considering the source. But I’m afraid that he’s right.

I’d sure like to know what the plan is. Or if there is one.