I think everyone's missing the point about Chavez', and what's his name of Iran's speech at the UN.

Both of them know are smart enough to realize that insulting Bush publicly, and the cruder the insult and more public the better, couldn't suit Bush any better. They realize that such insults will only increase support for Bush among the American people. And expressions of support by Americans for what those gentlemen said, such as those voiced in these messages, will add fuel to the charge that only far-out left wingers hate Bush.

It's the old I can criticize my family members any way I want but don't any outsiders try it syndrome.

But why would Chavez and what's his name want to help Bush? Because, like bin Laden, they realize that he is their greatest asset, the one who couldn't possibly do more to help them if he was on their direct payroll. Unlike most Americans they follow our politics carefully, and realize that a Democratic Congress could severely weaken the Bush administration, possibly even end it.

Is it a coindidence that the latest polls show a sudden sharp increase in Bush's approval ratings, and those who intend to vote for Republicans in Congress is suddenly equal to the number intending to vote Democratic?

So, tempting as it is to jump on Bush when he seems to be down, let's cool it in our support of outsiders who engage in over the top insults against him.

Let's get even for once, instead of just mad.

So Reality-based Liberal thinks I'm an idiot for saying that Hugo Chavez' speech (and Whatshisname's from Iran) at the UN were aimed at the rest of the world when they insulted our dear president, and not trying to help him.

OF COURSE they were speaking globally. But the rest of the world hardly needs any encouragement from those bozos to hate Bush, and any valid criticism would have been far more effective if dispatched in reasonable terms.

What I'm saying is that outrageous insults by unpopular foreign leaders, the more outrageous the better, is the best thing Bush could have going for him now. The average American simply doesn't have the intellect to realize this, and even most Bush haters will have a knee-jerk reaction to outsiders who insult our dear leader egregiously.

Maybe Chavez and the other guy didn't know that they were helping Bush, or simply didn't care. I think they did and their insults were calculated accordingly, but it doesn't matter. The point is they did help him, and those who publicly agree with them are contributing to that help.

Even the likes of Charley Ranger and Nancy Pelosi realize this and are criticizing those two outsiders as thugs and worse. They probably agree with everything the two said at the UN, but are discrete enough to bite their tongue about it.

Reality says we should "get a clue" and realize that not everyone outside the US who stands against Bush is evil, and not everything everybody does and sais in the world is calculated to affect the US or is directed against us. But of course. Where does he get the idea that I was saying otherwise? Did he really read what I wrote?

The point is that whether Bush is the absolute best thing Chavez, Whatshisname, bin Laden and other opponents have going for them. Maybe they don't realize this, but it wouldn't require rocket science for them to, and to do what they can to protect their asset.

Hell, that's probably why we haven't had a major terrorist attack here since 9-11. And the Bushies are taking the credit for it.

I smell a possible Rovian trap here.

Suppose, just suppose, that it was the REPUBLICAN leadership that leaked the Foley Follies scandal?

Why would they do that? Well, imagine the not unlikely event that they have the goods on a Democrat or two that have engaged in similar or worse behavior. They could then sit back and wait for the inevitable spurt of holier than thou criticism from the Democratic leadership, already taking place, and spring their trap.

They need not even have sacrificed Foley, and were simply holding on to their evidence as insurance against him being outed.

Are either possibilities true? I don't know, but it is a distinct possibility, one the Democrats should be wary of. It is precisely what Rove would think of. And what the Democrats would not.

But they've been warned now.

I smell the makings of a typical Rovian trick here.

Imagine the not unlikely event that the Democrats have one or more of their Congressional people engaging in their version of Foley's Follies. Imagine further that the Republicans have the goods on such behavior.

What would Rove do in such an event, knowing about Foley also? He would take ond of two actions: 1) Sacrifice Foley's seat and leak the information about him, or 2) hold onto the information as insurance in the event Foley was outed by others. In either case he would sit tight while the Democrats inevitably engaged in an outburst of holier than thou criticism, and then suddenly leak the goods on the Democrat(s) behaving similarly.

Is there at least one Democrat behaving similarly to Foley, or worse? Are the Republicans aware of this? I don't know, but both are quite possible. If they did, they would proceed exactly as described above.

The Democrats need to be aware of this possibility and act accordingly.

They've been warned.