Remember George W. Bush's Axis of Evil speech? Remember how the libs all wrung their hands because the Texas Redneck Idiot had the audacity to call out our enemies a la Ronald Reagan and his Evil Empire speech.

Well guess what? President Bush was exactly right when he lumped Iraq, Iran and North Korea in the same sentence...he only left out Syria:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 - The Sept. 6 attack by Israeli warplanes inside Syria struck what Israeli intelligence believes was a nuclear-related facility that North Korea was helping to equip, according to current and former American and Israeli officials.

Details about the Israeli assessment emerged as China abruptly canceled planned diplomatic talks in Beijing that were to set a schedule to disband nuclear facilities in North Korea. The Bush administration has declined to comment on the Israeli raid, but American officials were expected to confront the North Koreans about their suspected nuclear support for Syria during those talks.

But wait, isn't this the same Syria that Rep. Dennis Kucinich just visited and disrespected the president? Is that country led by Boy Assad, the second hand despot that Speaker Nancy Pelosi acted like she could do business with? The same Pelosi that said of Assad "We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel..." The Israelis are in a desperate position should Assad get nukes and they know it so they took action, apparently with U.S. knowledge.

Fresh back from Syria, where he served as a media pawn for President Assad, Democrat presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich took a proud stand today, voting against the September 11th Commemoration Resolution in the House. In fact, he was the only one who voted against it. Here's the title of the resolution, introduced by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.):

Recognizing September 11 as a day of rememberance, extending sympathies to those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, and their families, honoring the heroic actions of our nation's first responders and Armed Forces, and reaffirming the commitment to defending the people of the United States against any and all future challenges.

Yea, I can see how that's a pretty inflammatory resolution. Kucinich expounded on his reasons for spitting in the eyes of the families of those killed by al-Qaida on 9/11/01, of course:

It is important that Congress wake up to the truth and exercise its obligation under the Constitution to save our nation from being destroyed from the lies that took us into Iraq, the lies that keep us there, the lies that are being used to set the stage for war against Iran and the lies that have undermined our basic civil liberties here at home," Kucinich said in a statement. "The September 11 resolution that Congress considers today should have made reference to those matters. It does not, so I cannot support it," Kucinich said, also calling for a halt for further war funding and the troops to be brought home.

Whatever you say, President-to-Be Dennis. No need to create an international incident over it...

An interesting portrait of GOP Congressman Walter Jones in today's Politico. A staunch Christian conservative, until recently Jones was best known nationally as the man who championed the name change in the House cafeteria of French fries to "Freedom fries." But that was then.

For the past two years, Jones has been sounding downright liberal. Along with Denis Kucinich, he sponsored a measure to set a certain date for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. But that's not all:

Jones' politics have become increasingly at odds with a Republican party that he believes has lost its moorings. Although he voted to authorize the war, he has since become one of its most vociferous opponents. He was one of only two House Republicans to vote against expanding the scope of the administration's anti-terrorist surveillance program. And he thinks Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is downright incompetent, and believes vice-presidential aide Scooter Libby should have served some jail time -- "at least a day or two."

Jeez. What's next? A formal apology to the French? Of course, while I agree with just about every one of Mr. Jones' new-found views, it all spells potential trouble in terms of re-election. His district, home to the suspiciously-French-sounding Camp Lejeune, is, to put it mildly, "military friendly." In fact, it was in a small local diner called Cubbies where Freedom Fries made their debut. Here live many of the 28-percenters, the die-hard supporters of GWB. So we may be witnessing the final few months of Mr. Jones' congressional career. Alas.

Return with me if you will to the last time we had a slate of candidates running for the presidency in 2003-2004. There were many issues discussed. Some of them -- including he Iraq war -- are still issues. But perhaps the greatest issue was military service. Being on active duty meant you had a view on war that was more nuanced and righteous than those who did not.

George W. Bush was pilloried by the Kerry campaign, the media and the anti-war left because he did not get activated and sent to Vietnam. This triad sent near-daily press releases detailing John Kerry's 45-days of service as if he were Audie Murphy. The campaign made his Vietnam service the center-point of his campaign--a tactic that back-fired spectacularly once the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth went into action and dispelled the carefully crafted biography Kerry had laid out. The military issue was so prominent that a well-respected newsman--Dan Rather-- lost his job because of a falsified letter he presented as truthful was brilliantly picked apart by bloggers.

Fast-forward to the present; there's zero discussion of military service by either side. Why the sudden change in attitude about whether or not someone served? Simple, only a few have and none of them are Democrats.

Let's look at the candidates and see who did, who didn't and who plain came up with a reason not to serve in the greatest military in the world:

Democrats:

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden: None. Rejected for medical reasons, but would have been eligible in a national emergency.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: None.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd: Army Reserve (1969-75).

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards: None. Draft number was never called.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich: None. Was rejected for military service because of a heart murmur.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama: None. Too young to have been drafted for the Vietnam War.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico: None. Received student and medical classifications. Draft number was never called.

• • •

Republicans:

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback: None. Came of age as draft was ending.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: None. Received student and occupational deferments. Draft number was never called.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: None. Came of age as draft was ending.

California Rep. Duncan Hunter: Served as an Army paratrooper and Ranger in Vietnam (1969-71).

Arizona Sen. John McCain: Served in the Navy (1958-81); prisoner of war in Vietnam (1967-73).

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: None. Received a deferment as a Mormon missionary in France. Was eligible for the draft upon his return to the states but was never selected.

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo: None. Received student deferments. Was available for military service in 1969. Reclassified in 1970 because of stress-related anxiety and could have been called up only during a pressing national emergency.

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson: None. Gained deferment because he had children. (Note: Not on original list, added by author)

Texas Representative Ron Paul: Served in the Army as a Flight Surgeon (1963-1965); Air National Guard (1965-1968) Never served in Vietnam, served in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia and Turkey. (Note: Not on original list, added by author as an update on 8/22/07 0857))

If we go by the criteria set-forth in 2004, the only candidates who would warrant any attention and would have authority to speak on Iraq are Sen. John McCain, Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Duncan Hunter. In fact, Hunter's son is currently active duty and boots on the ground. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson would not be considered (however Thompson's exemption is more warranted than others). In fact, if we were to silence all who never served from talking about the war, the discussion would be pretty small.

I said it in 2004 and I'll say it again, the Founding Fathers believed strongly in the concept of civilian control of the military. There's a reason the Commander in Chief is the President and not a five star General or Admiral. The Democrats and liberals made it an issue because they had a candidate who had served in Vietnam and the GOP did not. Now that circumstances are different, the fact that their candidates have no service time is not even muttered and that is disengenuous at best.

If I were John McCain and Duncan Hunter, I'd make this a priority on their campaigns, however, most who served are too proud or humble to do that. Of course, John Kerry was neither and wore his like a badge of courage while John McCain -- a man beaten in a POW prison for years -- did not.

I'll bet that not many readers of this blog, nor many people nationwide, know that there is a movement afoot to create a Cabinet level "Department of Peace." I certainly did not realize that there were concrete plans for it. I only remember having heard Dennis Kucinich mutter about it in several interviews I've heard over the years. But today it's a real possibility, with real money and organization behind it. Believe it or not, there's currently a resolution in the Democratic-led House of Representatives aimed at establishing such a department.

If you're not involved in the movement, you probably have little chance of finding out about it, up until now. The plan is either intentionally or accidentally not being reported on in the media. Even if you look for it at the Library of Congress via THOMAS you can't find it under the reported resolution number, HR 808. I just found out about it when I visited the site of the political magazine City Journal. There's an article (The Peace Racket) posted on the site about this proposal and the ideology behind it, that should frighten any rational human being.

We need to make two points about this movement at the outset. First, it's opposed to every value that the West stands for-liberty, free markets, individualism-and it despises America, the supreme symbol and defender of those values. Second, we're talking not about a bunch of naive Quakers but about a movement of savvy, ambitious professionals that is already comfortably ensconced at the United Nations, in the European Union, and in many nongovernmental organizations.

Whenever dealing with movements like this (liberal or conservative), I try to connect the dots -- find out who is ultimately pulling the strings. As the anti-Vietnam War movement can be ultimately traced back to the Communists, so these new peace groups can be tracked back not to our friends, but our enemies. And why not? It's worked to our enemies' benefit in the past - might as well use the same formula again. To anyone who doubts this, I suggest they read Propaganda Redux by Ion Mihai Pacepa in the Wall Street Journal. The author helped run the Western anti-Vietnam War movement from Communist Romania before he defected. Then Google his name -- he's written quite a bit on his previous exploits, not that you'd find any of it published in the New York Times.

I get very nervous about resolutions creating new Cabinet positions, with more than 60 co-sponsors, that don't get media attention. You should as well.

With the expected-sooner-or-later news that Tommy Thompson is bowing out of the GOP presidential primary, I've been wondering, who's next?

The top tier, those who are collecting money, support, or doing well in the polls will be in it to stay. Also in it for the long haul are those for whom the message is way more important than their position in money or polling, or even their own self-respect. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, I'm looking at you. It's the middle tier, those who are serious candidates, have great resumes, but are now facing the obvious. They will never get their party's nomination. At least, not in this cycle.

My vote on the GOP side is for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. Despite placing third place in the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll, he lost to Mike Huckabee, who is competing for the exact same sets of conservative Christian voters, despite spending almost twice as much money. He's a senator, which is a weaker position than a governor, and there are still two governors or former governors in the race (plus a mayor who was the executive of a city with a bigger population than most of the states.). Basically he's redundant, and at some point he will face those facts, probably before January, long before January.

On the Democratic side, we have a close one between Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Neither of them have a chance, most folks don't even know they are running. Obama is sucking up all the oxygen and whatever's left is going to Hillary and John Edwards. My bet is that Chris Dodd will bow out first because Joe Biden thinks very, very highly of himself, enough to overcome any feelings of inadequacy about scraping the bottom of the barrel in this contest. Chris Dodd is out before December?

What's your call? Who's out next and when?

Not much of a debate if you ask me. Democratic candidates, one at a time, get asked pointed questions about their position on issues that matter to gays. Ryan Sager has a good liveblogging summary, and the Sun-Sentinel has a write-up:

The candidates underscored differences with Republicans on gay and lesbian rights, but leading candidates also faced aggressive questioning on their reluctance to embrace marriage for same-sex couples.

All of the Democratic candidates support a federal ban on anti-gay job discrimination, want to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military and support civil unions that would extend marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.

Sure, but that's the easy stuff, what about gay arriage, an idea against which amendments have passed by large margins in most states of the union, including states that Democrats need to win the presidency.

"They're closing down the textile mill across the railroad tracks/Foreman says these jobs are going, boys, and they ain't coming back..." ~Bruce Springsteen, "My Hometown"

Who can rescue the U.S. economy?

This past weekend, I visited Halibut Point State Park in Rockport, Mass. You can see all the way to Maine from this Cape Ann gem, and take a self-guided tour of the Babson Farm Quarry once used for generating granite. The quarry closed in 1929, a park brochure informed me, and "The growing preference for steel-framed buildings and for asphalt and concrete road surfaces guaranteed that the industry would never recover." At least, not in New England: "Most granite for the American market is now quarried in Texas," the brochure continues, "with some imported from as far away as India and China."

Among our presidential candidates, who talks about job-related issues? John Edwards has made poverty part of his platform. The New York Times magazine reports that "now, when he brings up his humble beginnings, it's mainly to suggest that he knows what it's like to be one layoff or one X-ray away from destitution."

A friend was back from Ohio yesterday, and I've been thinking about what role the Buckeye State barometer will mean for national politics these days.

So far, the most notable Ohioan out there in the presidential race is anti-war Democratic gadfly Dennis Kucinich. He shows us that the Midwest maligned by Easterners like myself actually has a liberal side. I guess the 2004 presidential election proved this: Even though Dubya won the state, John Kerry did well in urban areas. So, if even the Midwest is trending left, that's a good sign for Democrats.

Yet while liberal Ohioans like Kucinich, new Sen. Sherrod Brown, and new Gov. Ted Strickland are enjoying rising fortunes, though, don't expect the religious right in the state to roll over. After all, powerful Pentecostal pastor Rod Parsley, of the World Harvest Church outside Columbus, has come out with a new book, "Culturally Incorrect," which is on the best-seller list of the newspaper he loves to hate, the New York Times.

Hey, why not?

The Ohio Democrat and the Texas Republican have a significant bond: They're antiwar activists detested by their party establishment who, on a bipartisan or third-party ticket, could command significant grass-roots support.

During Monday's debate among the Democratic presidential hopefuls, Dennis Kucinich used his time extensively and expertly, detailing his anti-war credentials. His finest moment came in response to a questioner who cited the flags that "covered the coffins of my grandfather, my father, and my oldest son," and asked, "By what date after January 21st, 2009, will all U.S. troops be out of Iraq?" Kucinich replied, "The underlying assumption here is that we're going to be in Iraq until the next president takes office, and I reject that totally. People can send a message to Congress right now -- and this is in a convention of this appearance -- they can text peace, and text 73223, text peace. Send a message to Congress right now, you want out."

If Kucinich really wants the U.S. out of Iraq, he should transcend party politics and connect with Republican candidate Ron Paul.

Uh-oh, Someone left an microphone open and now Dennis "Department of Peace" Kucinich is mad:

"This is a serious matter and I'm calling him on it," Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in a telephone interview Friday. "Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity."

Kucinich's comments came after Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton were overheard Thursday discussing the possibility of limiting the number of participants in future presidential forums.

Now usually the top dog wants to include the extras to keep the opposition from coalescing around any one single candidate. Hillary's either completely comfortable in her position as the very top dog, or she too is bothered by the time and energy wasted by the one percenters, or she was just being diplomatic.

Either way, I'm torn. I like the idea of having the second and third tier candidates getting a chance to break out, and debates are a part of that, but when you have up to 11 or 12 on the Republican side, it's definitely getting too unwieldy. Is fund-raising ability a good separator? Polling? Either are fraught with problems. Or can we just use common sense and say that those candidates who don't have a snowball's chance in h*** of becoming president don't get to play. I'm looking at you, Kucinich and Gravel.

On the GOP side, the immigration issue is a three-ton anchor around John McCain's neck. He won the last poll and since then has dipped dramatically. For Barack Obama, he seems to have shored up the African-American vote and has assumed a nice lead over Hillary. The numbers are bleak for the second and third tier candidates:

With strong support from the African American community, Illinois Senator Obama has assumed a strong lead over New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the Republican side, Thompson zoomed to the top spot, slightly ahead of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, even though he hasn't yet announced his bid for the GOP nomination.

The Mason-Dixon poll, made available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News, offered disappointing news for two candidates who previously had been polling well in South Carolina. John Edwards, a South Carolina native who won the primary in 2004, was well behind Obama and Clinton on the Democratic side. Arizona Sen. John McCain, meanwhile, appeared to have lost many of his supporters to Thompson, and was far back in the GOP field.

Obama polled at 34% while Hillary was at 25%. The biggest news is that the hometown boy John Edwards only garnered 12%, a showing that is more dismal given that he has always had major support in the state.

On the Republican side, Fred Thompson beat Rudy Giuliani 25% to 21%, a good amount considering he hasn't even announced. Mitt Romney polled at 11% and McCain is in single digits at 7%.

A few observations from the second Dem debate.

-Unlike Ron Paul, Democratic spoiler Mike Gravel could not keep up the entertaining hijinks from the first debate and looked rather bumbling all around.

-At times it felt as if John Edwards and Barack Obama were having a private conversation.

-Hillary Clinton continues to show that she's a polished candidate. She has an alert, articulate presence, and doesn't wither from attacks (be they from Dennis Kucinich or Edwards).

-If you assumed that each of the moderators' microphones would have been tested before the debate started, you would be wrong.

-Obama is damn good at thinking on his feet, and, of the big three, seemed to answer each question the most directly.

-Bill Richardson did well in stressing his experience, but tends to bite off more than he can chew. Why is Bill Clinton angry at him, and why do we keep worrying about what job the former president will be given?

-Whose bright idea was it to get rid of the podiums and tell them to sit down? And where's Oprah? Somehow I think she'd be better at this format than moderator Wolf Blitzer.

-Thanks to the Fox News Republican debate, it seems that idiotic hypothetical questions will now be a staple of all future debates.

-Joe Biden (whose delivery was, at times, the most impassioned) and Chris Dodd did pretty well but have no chance whatsoever.

-Kucinich and Gravel did poorly and have no chance whatsoever.

Bottom line. A fairly substantive, if not boring, debate.

Democrat Dennis Kucinich of Ohio is making another run at the White House, once again focusing on the issue of Iraq. We've invited all of the candidates to deliver a tailored video appeal to all of you, our AOL users, and he is the first to do so. So, take a watch:

Almost all of the candidates are uploading video of their speeches, issue positions and campaign ads to our "Watch the Candidates" feature. Check it out here.

According to AOL News, the House of Representatives failed to override Bush's veto of the Iraq War funding (with timetables for withdrawal) which brings us back to square one. Our troops are in Iraq and they are going to run out of funding very soon.

And interestingly, apparently almost every Republican in the House is not listening to George Will, David Brooks, or William F. Buckley.

The House vote was 222-203, 62 shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. With few exceptions, Republicans stood fast with Bush in the wartime clash.

So the big question this evening is: If Iraq funding with no timetables is such a loser with the American public, why is that not translated into at least some GOP defections in the House? How many Republicans did Nancy Pelosi get?

Two! And how many Democrats voted against this bill? Seven! So Nancy lost more Democrats in trying to pass this bill than gained Republicans. Ouch! That's gotta leave a mark!