I wish you all the best and offer my thanks for your loyal readership.

Update:  I've turned commenting off as well.

The war, in fact, almost cost Mr. Bush the election last year.  Had he chosen a different course, so much of the anti-Bush sentiment that screamed so loudly during the campaign would have been, at least in part, muzzled.  Imagine if he had decided not to go into Iraq.  Imagine if the establishment of democracy in Afghanistan and the pursuit of Osama bin Ladin had dominated the headlines in the months prior to the election.  I believe the country's attitude toward the President would have been significantly more positive on election day.  Subtract the couple hundred billion dollars we've spent in Iraq from a much-publicized federal deficit and bring back the more than 1800 Americans lost, and you have the makings of a landslide.  Without the political baggage Iraq became for the President, only the most radical could have found serious fault in his administration of the War on Terror.  Sure, his political opponents would have found something to gripe about, but their influence on a vast majority of voters would have been minimal.

Yet a War on Terror that didn't include taking out Saddam might well have included a major terrorist attack on us or our allies facilitated by the dictator's evil regime.  None would deny he had the will and desire to bring such destruction on us.  Few would deny, if given enough time and enough insulation from international scrutiny, that he would have sought that capability.  Now we'll never know - thankfully.  That inability to know what would have happened, however, highlights a potential disaster for Mr. Bush's presidential legacy and, by association, GOP candidates in 2006 and 2008.

Another terrorist attack on America on the scale of September 11, 2001 would open the President up to cries of gross mismanagement - even negligence - with regard to America's pursuit of her terrorist enemies.  In the event of another attack, some would criticize the President for failing to keep us safe - even without our involvement in Iraq - but given all the resources and manpower we've committed to the struggle there, that criticism would surely resound with a much larger slice of the electorate.

Indeed, defending the war in Iraq will certainly become much more difficult if a major terrorist attack is carried out here in the near future.  Who knows if the "rally-around-the-flag" effect would be swept away amid the perception that Bush dropped the ball and enabled what could have been prevented?  In terms of Bush's legacy, history may then view him as the man who severely undermined the security of America during a time when we critically needed to be secure.  And GOP candidates all over might be subject to the wrath of furious and grieving voters adamantly demanding a change in direction.

Truth be told, whether we are attacked again or not, we will never know for sure what the Iraq war enabled and what it prevented.  It is entirely possible that by fighting so many of the enemy in Iraq - augmenting our continuing global pursuit of terrorists everywhere - that we have actually hindered the terrorists' ability to launch a grand-scale attack against us.  On the other hand, it is also possible that our involvement there has aided the terrorists in their quest to inflict their horror upon us - though I must admit I can't fathom how.  Finally, the possibility exists that we've neither increased nor decreased the likelihood of an attack by taking on Saddam and the terrorists in Iraq.

Looking ahead to the next 3 years or so, we will either be attacked or we won't.  If we aren't attacked, some in Bush's camp may tout our strategy, including Iraq, as the reason.  They may or may not be right - we'll never know.  If we are attacked, the left will say the Iraq war is the cause and Bush is the culprit.  They may or may not be right - we'll never know.  The truth will be elusive in either case.  One thing I will say, whether deciding to wage war in Iraq was the right decision or not, without that action the President's legacy and the GOP's prospects in the near term would be much less vulnerable to attack from an attack.

I voted for Capito in West Virginia.  Not sure if she's running, or has a chance if she does, but knocking off an institution like the former klansman Byrd would be amazing.  Just the possibility, regardless of how small, gets me excited.

In pre-emptive response to comments I'm sure to receive from this post, let me put it in perspective for you.  Aside from the words "under God", the Pledge of Allegiance also contains the phrase "with liberty and justice for all."  There are some in this country who don't agree with that.  They are the most extreme among us, and they believe one race's rights should outweigh the rest.  Justice for all is not what they want in the least.  But you know what?  The majority of us don't feel that way, so they must put up with that language in the Pledge.

You have the right to be an atheist, and you have the right to be a racist, but you don't have a right to have every public policy, document, or decree reflect those beliefs.  If a majority of Americans, as determined by who wins elections and appoints judges to interpret the Constitution, believes "under God" is just fine in the Pledge of Allegiance, then, by golly, it is!

Update:  For the sake of consistency, I need to add that if the courts ruled in the father's favor, then, by golly, that would have been just fine, too - not with me mind you, but with the concept of representative government.  If duly appointed judges, nominated and confirmed by duly elected officials, ruled that way, then I should not cry foul and say the republic is broken.  What I should do, in that case, is what the father can do now - work and vote to elect officials who will affect the outcome he desires with respect to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why do I share this useless information?  I'll tell you.  Not once this week have we asked anyone for permission.  Not once were we worried that government troops or outlaw bandidos would stop our minivan and hurt us or take our stuff.  The same is true for the thousands upon thousands we passed along the way who are living out their lives and making those decisions for themselves.  Ain't freedom just grand!  May we never lose sight of the awesome privilege of liberty that we have in America, and may we never forget the vigilence required of each of us to keep ourselves free.  But we must be careful not to mistakenly define freedom.  As one of our founding fathers once said...

Liberty is not the license to do as you please, it is the freedom to do as you ought.

Indeed.  The "if-it-feels-good-do-it" crowd should take note - that attitude doesn't reflect freedom.  It corrupts it.

By edict of The Blogging Caesar, it is hereby decreed that Judge John Roberts will be confirmed by the United States Senate and seated on the Supreme Court bench in time to open the October session.  Furthermore, the filibuster will not be employed by the democrats in the senate.

I hereby seal and deliver this edict this Saturday, the 6th of August, in the year of our Lord 2005.

Here we go again (in no particular order):

Update:  At 10:30, with 662 out of 753, Hackett has closed the gap considerably.  The vote count stands at 49,681 to 48,811.  As they say in sports, it's anybody's ballgame now.  Win or lose, this is certainly a "moral victory" for the democrats tonight.