Thursday Donald Rumsfeld was responding to the suggestion that bombings in London (succesful and not) were tied to the US's ongoing presence in Iraq. His response was simply that some people "cling to the discredited theory that the recent attacks in London and elsewhere ... are really in retaliation for the war in Iraq or for the so-called occupation of Afghanistan. That is nonsense." (Full text here.) Sorry, sorry, Don. Sorry. Could we just back up to the slide about 'so-called' occupation? I don't mean to get all academic and in your face about it, but Mirriam Webster (ok, M-W.com) defines occupation as " the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force." If that isn't what we're doing in Iraq, explain me what the hell is going on over there. He often speaks of retribution for terrorist acts, but let's be realistic - the 9/11 attacks, the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and the Nairobi Embassy bombing total 2,989 deaths. We're two-thirds of the way there just in US casualties and nobody even knows how many Iraqis are dead from air strikes sent from the US military to support an occupation that apparently doesn't even exist. Great! The DoD has passed Abu Musad al-Zarqawi on the list of people most dangerous to US citizens and I'm 1/280,000,000 of the world's biggest terror organization. Super! Now over to Ted with up-to-the-minute sports news!

In a related story, Mssr. Bush's approval rating is at his lowest ever, just 38%. Again, kudos on a job well done. Political capital? Well spent, Mr. President.