Our country needs to have national security policies that protect the interests of the American people. To do that, those policies must keep us safe and well defended against the myriad threats we face. But they cannot succeed unless they also reflect the kind of people we are, the values we share, the hopes we have, and the ideals that hold us together as a nation.

I am worried that many of the policies the Bush Administration is pursuing today do not provide the best means of defending our interests, and do not reflect the fundamental values of our people.

In saying this, I am respectful of the pressures our leaders face. Safeguarding our national security in this era is a very complex challenge, to which there are no easy answers. The President deserves praise for rallying the spirits of our people after September 11 and for some of the measures he and others in his Administration have taken since. I know they are sincere, and that they want what is best for our country and the world.

But I would not be doing my job as a citizen if I did not state my own conviction about where I believe we could do better.

The stakes are so high, this is not a time for holding back or sheepishly going along with the herd.

I believe that the President too often employs a reckless, go-it-alone approach that drives us away from some of our longest-standing and most important allies, when what we need is to pull the world community together in common action against the imminent threat of terrorism.

I believe that the President undercuts our long-term national security interests and the established international order when he seeks to replace decades of bipartisan consensus on the use of American force with a new doctrine justifying preemptive attacks against other nation states - not because of their current action or imminent threat, but to preempt a threat that could arise in the future.

I believe that the President must do more on the most important front in the war on terrorism - our home front - through strengthened and well-funded first responders and effective security measures that go beyond calls to purchase plastic sheeting and duct tape.

And I firmly believe that the President is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time, when our energy and our resources should be marshaled for the greatest threats we face. Yes, Saddam Hussein is evil. But Osama bin Laden is also evil, and he has attacked the United States, and he is preparing now to attack us again.

What happened to the war against al Qaeda?

Why has this Administration taken us so far off track?

I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America's security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein.

Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq - unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.

I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations.

That the President was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who were worried about political positioning for the presidential election.

To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.

Nor has the Administration prepared sufficiently for the possible retaliatory attacks on our home front that even the President's CIA Director has stated are likely to occur. It has always been important, before going to war, for our troops to be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-protected. In this new era, it is as important that our people on the home front also be well-protected.

The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.

And the Administration has approached the United Nations more as an afterthought than as the international institution created to deal with precisely such a situation as we face in Iraq. From the outset, the Administration has seemed oblivious to the simple fact that it clearly would be in our interests for any war with Iraq to occur with UN authorization and cooperation and not without it.

The Administration's reckless bluster with our allies over Iraq has caused what could be lasting friction in important relationships and has injured our standing in the world community. When rhetoric by subordinates in the Administration alienates our long-standing allies, it should be met with reprimand and not condoned by the President.

[snip]

We have been told over and over again what the risks will be if we do not go to war.

We have been told little about what the risks will be if we do go to war.

If we go to war, I certainly hope the Administration's assumptions are realized, and the conflict is swift, successful and clean.

I certainly hope our armed forces will be welcomed like heroes and liberators in the streets of Baghdad.

I certainly hope Iraq emerges from the war stable, united and democratic.

I certainly hope terrorists around the world conclude it is a mistake to defy America and cease, thereafter, to be terrorists.

It is possible, however, that events could go differently, and that the Iraqi Republican Guard will not sit out in the desert where they can be destroyed easily from the air.

It is possible that Iraq will try to force our troops to fight house to house in the middle of cities - on its turf, not ours - where precision-guided missiles are of little use.

It is possible that women and children will be used as shields and our efforts to minimize civilian casualties will be far less successful than we hope.

There are other risks.

Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

Iran and Turkey each have interests in Iraq they will be tempted to protect with or without our approval.

If the war lasts more than a few weeks, the danger of humanitarian disaster is high, because many Iraqis depend on their government for food, and during war it would be difficult for us to get all the necessary aid to the Iraqi people.

There is a risk of environmental disaster, caused by damage to Iraq's oil fields.

And, perhaps most importantly, there is a very real danger that war in Iraq will fuel the fires of international terror.

Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oil.

And last week's tape by Osama bin Laden tells us that our enemies will seek relentlessly to transform a war into a tool for inspiring and recruiting more terrorists.

We should remember how our military presence in Saudi Arabia has been exploited by radicals to stir resentment and hatred against the United States, leading to the murder of American citizens and soldiers.

We need to consider what the effect will be of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Baghdad, a city that served for centuries as a capital of the Islamic world.

Some people simply brush aside these concerns, saying there were also a lot of dire predictions before the first Gulf War, and that those didn't come true.

We have learned through experience to have confidence in our armed forces - and that confidence is very well deserved.

But if you talk to military leaders, they will tell you there is a big difference between pushing back the Iraqi armed forces in Kuwait and trying to defeat them on their home ground.

There are limits to what even our military can do. Technology is not the solution to every problem. And we can't assume the Iraqis have learned nothing over the past twelve years.

Over 120,000 citizens voted for me in 2004. This was an unprecedented number of votes for a Democratic challenger in the Fifth District. In fact, I received more votes than the Democratic candidate for President. I was endorsed by all three major newspapers. We created a campaign based on issues not on personal
attacks and our opponent outspent us by 3-1. By the end of the campaign, we gained tremendous momentum and I am truly grateful to every voter who cast their vote for
Dorothea Anne Wolfe.

I was asked by a tremendous number of voters to run again in 2006, as many of you felt that the Fifth District deserved to have a known Democratic challenger
continue to fight to regain the Fifth District seat. I raised over $75,000 and went to Washington, D.C., to seek early endorsements from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other national groups. I was praised for my performance in 2004, but the priorities of the DCCC and other groups like
EMILY's List for 2006 do not include New Jersey's Fifth District.

If one examines all of the polls and their projections for the 2006 cycle, our District is not included. The cost of running a reasonable race in the Fifth District is above $1.5 million and viability is important for funding. The party organizations have encouraged me to self-fund and that is not possible.

Because of these financial and strategic considerations, and because of other pressing issues in the district that need immediate attention, I have decided to withdraw my name for consideration as a Democratic candidate for the United States Congress in the Fifth District of New Jersey in 2006.

Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it "infiltrated" key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.
The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port deal, who fear the Dubai-based firm could be used by terrorists to sneak money and personnel into the United States.

Little is known about the origins or authorship of the message.

"You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship and monetary agencies, along with other agencies that should not be mentioned," the message said.

"Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing . . . policies which do not serve your interest and will only cost you many problems that will place you in an embarrassing state before your citizens.

"Your homeland is exposed to us. There are many vital interests that will hurt you if we decided to harm them."

The document was among a batch of internal al Qaeda communications captured by U.S. forces in the war on terror.

They were declassified and released earlier this month by the Center for Combating Terrorism at West Point.

The security of port terminal operations is a key concern. More than 7 million cargo containers come through 361 American ports annually, half of the containers through New York-New Jersey, Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif. Only a small percentage are physically searched and just 37 percent currently screened for radiation, an indication of an attempt to smuggle in nuclear material that could be used for a "dirty bomb."

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the government began a new program that required documentation on all cargo 24 hours before it was loaded on a ship in a foreign port bound for the United States. A "risk analysis" is conducted on every shipment, including a review of the ship's history, the cargo's history and contents and other factors. Each ship must also provide the U.S. government 96 hours notice of its arrival in an American port, along with a crew manifest.

None of the nine administration officials assembled for the briefing could immediately say how many of the more than 3,000 port terminals are currently under foreign control.

Port facility operators have a major security responsibility, and one that could be exploited by terrorists if they infiltrate the company, said Joe Muldoon III. Muldoon is an attorney representing Eller & Co., a port facility operator in Florida partnered with M&O in Miami. Eller opposes the Dubai takeover for security reasons.

"The Coast Guard oversees security, and they have the authority to inspect containers if they want and they can look at manifests, but they are really dependent on facility operators to carry out security issues," Muldoon said.

The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 requires vessels and port facilities to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop security plans including passenger, vehicle and baggage screening procedures; security patrols; establishing restricted areas; personnel identification procedures; access control measures; and/or installation of surveillance equipment.

Under the same law, port facility operators may have access to Coast Guard security incident response plans -- that is, they would know how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terrorist attacks.

"The concern is that the UAE may be our friend now ... but who's to say that couldn't change, or they couldn't be infiltrated. Iran was our big buddy," said Muldoon.

[snip]

"All a terrorist organization needs to do is find a single weak link within a 'trusted' shipper's complex supply chain, such as a poorly paid truck driver taking a container from a remote factory to a port. They can then gain access to the container in one of the half-dozen ways well known to experienced smugglers," CFR wrote.

The Bush administration said Friday it won't reconsider its approval for a United Arab Emirates company to take over significant operations at six U.S. ports.

[snip]

The president's national security adviser said the White House would keep trying to persuade lawmakers there's more time since the company offered to delay its takeover but the administration wouldn't reconsider its approval.

"There are questions raised in the Congress, and what this delay allows is for those questions to be addressed on the Hill," Stephen Hadley said. "There's nothing to reopen."

[snip]

Said Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan: "We believe once Congress has a better understanding of the facts and the safeguards that are in place that they will be more comfortable with the transaction moving forward. So, a slight delay would be helpful in that regard,"

If Dubai Ports World (DPW) does as nifty a job of running our ports as it has done running the freeport in Dubai then we are screwed. This is not about the fact that police and security officials from the United Arab Emirates have been helping us track down Al Qaeda operatives and other ornery jihadists. The issue here is the fact that the port in Dubai is one of the major ports in the world involved with smuggling of counterfeit and contraband product. A few years ago, for example, I was alerted to a shipment of several containers of cigarettes from Panama's port of Colon to Dubai. The addressee on the invoice? Al Rabea Spare Car Parts. Now, last time I checked, cigarettes are not and never have been an automobile spare car part.

Other items, including consumer electronics, liquor, HP print cartridges, make their way to Dubai and are then smuggled into tough areas like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And what is Dubai Ports World doing to crackdown on this activity? Nothing.

The inability or refusal to deal with the use of ports under the control of Dubai Ports World that are involved with smuggling is reason enough to stop this deal dead in its tracks. The owners of DPW are not the ones cooperating closely with the United States in tracking down the terrorists who attacked us. Instead, they have close ties to a host of shipping companies, including those owned by the Bin Laden family.

The challenge of smuggling a dirty nuke is comparable to smuggling containers of cigarettes, liquor, and shoes. If DPW will not stop the latter how can we be confident they will prevent the former? That's a security bet we should not take or make.

The released notes document Donald Rumsfeld's 2:40 PM instructions to General Myers to find the "[b]est info fast . . . judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]" (as discussed on p. 334-335 of the 9/11 Commission Report and in Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack).

In addition, the documents confirm the contents of CBS News' Sept. 4, 2002 report "Plans For Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted Rumsfeld's notes as stating: "Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not." These lines were not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report or Woodward's Plan of Attack, and to my knowledge, have not been independently confirmed by any other source. After the Rathergate fiasco, I wondered if CBS had been fooled into publishing a story that, from a publicity perspective, seemed too good to be true.

Finally, these documents unveil a previously undisclosed part of the 2:40 PM discussion. Several lines below the "judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at same time" line, Cambone's notes from the conversation read: "Hard to get a good case."

2:40
Resume Statement:

Best info fast
judge whether good enough
Hit S.H@ same time -
Not just UBL

Tasks Jim Haynes to talk w/ PW
for additional support v/v Usis &
connection w/ UBL

[REDACTED (N.R. stands for Not Relevant)]

- Hard to get a good case

- Need to move swiftly -

Near term target needs -
- go massive - sweep it all up
- Things related & not

[ARROW]
Need to do so
to get anything
useful"

9:53 PM EST:

VP Report:

1) CIA intercept
[redacted]

2) AA77 - 3 indiv have been followed
since Millennium & Cole
1 guy is assoc of Cole bomber
3 entered US in early July (2 of 3 pulled aside and interrogated?)

3) No M.O.

Mr Wolfowitz, now the head of the World Bank, advocated regime change in Iraq before 2001. But, according to an account of the days after September 11 in Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, a decision was taken to put off consideration of an attack on Iraq until after the Taliban had been toppled in Afghanistan.

But these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck.

NEW YORK-February 24, 2006-Air America Radio announced today that comedian Marc Maron, former co-host of “Morning Sedition,” will return to the network on February 28, at 10:00 pm PST, when it debuts “The Marc Maron Show.” The announcement was made by President Gary Krantz.

"The Marc Maron Show" will air from 10:00-12:00 am PST out of KTLK 1150 AM in Los Angeles and will be syndicated through Air America Syndications. The program is a nightly Los Angeles variety show, complete with live comedy, in-studio announcers, and one-on-one interviews. "The Marc Maron Show" has a laid-back performance and interview style reminiscent of "The Late Show with David Letterman" or "Late Night with Conan O’Brien," with an emphasis on culture (including politics) and comedy.

Regular characters will include: Planet Bush Bureau Chief Lawton Smalls, Inside-the-Beltway Odds-maker Johnny K Street, Ultra-conservative alter-ego Marc the Shark, and Cardinal Milfington’s Rapture Watch.

"We are thrilled to be the flagship station for Marc Maron's new show on Air America," said KTLK’s Station Manager John Quinlan. "Many of our listeners have been asking when Marc will be back on the air and we are happy tell them that it will be next week."

"We're going to be drawing talent from my friends in the comedy and sketch community out here in LA to create new characters, bits and insanity," said Maron. "We've got great weekly guests lined up. I've got new issues, the world has new issues, and we're ready to go. We think it will be the funniest, most informative, late night radio show on the air."

The Bush administration clearly made no serious effort to ensure that the deal didn't endanger national security. But that's nothing new — the administration has spent the past four and a half years refusing to do anything serious about protecting the nation's ports.

So why did this latest case of sloppiness and indifference finally catch the public's attention? Because this time the administration has become a victim of its own campaign of fearmongering and insinuation.

Let's go back to the beginning. At 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld gave military commanders their marching orders. "Judge whether good enough hit S. H. [Saddam Hussein] @ same time — not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]," read an aide's handwritten notes about his instructions. The notes were recently released after a Freedom of Information Act request. "Hard to get a good case," the notes acknowledge. Nonetheless, they say: "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

So it literally began on Day 1. When terrorists attacked the United States, the Bush administration immediately looked for ways it could exploit the atrocity to pursue unrelated goals — especially, but not exclusively, a war with Iraq.

But to exploit the atrocity, President Bush had to do two things. First, he had to create a climate of fear: Al Qaeda, a real but limited threat, metamorphosed into a vast, imaginary axis of evil threatening America. Second, he had to blur the distinctions between nasty people who actually attacked us and nasty people who didn't.

The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam — what's the difference?

Now comes the ports deal. Mr. Bush assures us that "people don't need to worry about security." But after all those declarations that we're engaged in a global war on terrorism, after all the terror alerts declared whenever the national political debate seemed to be shifting to questions of cronyism, corruption and incompetence, the administration can't suddenly change its theme song to "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

[snip]

But more to the point, after years of systematically suggesting that Arabs who didn't attack us are the same as Arabs who did, the administration can't suddenly turn around and say, "But these are good Arabs."

Finally, the ports affair plays in a subliminal way into the public's awareness — vague but widespread — that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed deliverer of democracy to the Middle East, and his family have close personal and financial ties to Middle Eastern rulers. Mr. Bush was photographed holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (now King Abdullah), not the emir of Dubai. But an administration that has spent years ridiculing people who try to make such distinctions isn't going to have an easy time explaining the difference.

If the furor over the port deal should go on, Mr. England said, it would give enemies of the United States aid and comfort: "They want us to become distrustful, they want us to become paranoid and isolationist."

Now, my mom reads this blog. And I don't like gratuitous profanity because it's the easy way to evoke emotion when you don't have the right words. But Gordon England, you're a total asshole.

How fucking dare you invoke Osama and September 11 in order to get us to support an administration policy that is in fact CONTRARY to our national security interests? Just because Bush is in bed with the Middle Eastern oil producers we're supposed to roll over and play dead while you guys just give away that store to your petro-buddies?

How fucking dare you preach to us about being distrustful and paranoid?

You son of a bitches have raised distrust and fear to a high art. You have repeatedly violated the legitimate shock and horror Americans felt after September 11, abused our collective grief and pain and psychosis in order to push your own petty, personal political goals, and now that we catch you red handed, you have the balls to invoke September 11 again?

Gordon England, how fucking dare you, you un-American piece of shit.

You want to talk about giving aid and comfort to our enemies? How about your boss single handedly ripping the US Constitution to shreds, spying on American citizens, lying to the American public in order to get us to support his failed wars of convenience that have now so overstrapped our military we're unable to defend ourselves where and when it really matters?

How many World Trade Centers do you think Osama would have been more than willing to bomb in order to achieve all that? You people fucking handed Osama the dismantling of our entire democracy, and he didn't even need to fire another shot. And you lecture us about aiding and comforting the enemy?

How fucking dare you even have the nerve to speak to us about what's best for American ports when your God damn administration still hasn't secured container traffic coming into those very same American ports from abroad? What's the latest figure of the percentage of foreign containers shipped into the US that are actually screened (you know, for innocent little things like nukes)? Is it 5% max that gets searched, all the rest just go merrily on their way into our country containing God knows what?

And you have the nerve to lecture us about port safety and paranoia?

When the president of the United States is so out of touch that he goes on vacation for three days while a hurricane is wiping an entire American city off the map, you better believe I get paranoid.

When the president of the United States is so out of touch that he doesn't even know until the next day that his own vice president nearly killed a man, you better believe I get paranoid.

And when the president of the United States runs and hides for the entire day on September 11 while millions of us are forced to turn to Peter Jennings and Rudy Giuliani to be our presidents-by-proxy because George Bush is too much of a chicken shit to show his face for 12 fucking hours while we thought the world was ending, you better believe I get paranoid.

Gordon England. Go fuck yourself.

House Bill 1215 would ban most abortions in South Dakota.

It now goes back to the House, which passed an earlier version and must now decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate.

The bill would then go to Gov. Mike Rounds.

Republican Sen. Bill Napoli of Rapid City said, "This bill is as straight
forward and as honest as it can be. It just says no more abortions unless the life of the mother is threatened."

Republican Sen. Tom Dempster of Sioux Falls said, "This bill ends up being cold, indifferent and as hostile as any great prairie blizzard that this state has ever seen.''

Democrat Sen. Julie Bartling of Burke said the time is right for the ban on abortion.

“In my opinion, it is the time for this South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the rights and lives of unborn children,” she said during the Senate's debate. “There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children.”

Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein of Rapid City had tried to amend the bill to include an exception for abortions for victims of rape. The amendment lost 14-21.

“To require a woman who has been savaged to carry the brutal attack result is a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota,” he said.

Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck of Watertown objected.

Rape should be punished severely, he said, but the amendment is unfair to “some equally innocent souls who have no chance to stand and defend themselves.”

The Senate also defeated a proposed amendment to insert an exception to allow an abortion to protect the health of a pregnant woman. That was offered by Republican Sen. David Knudson. It failed on a 13-22 vote.

Senators who favor the ban on abortion also killed an amendment that would have sent the issue to a public vote and another amendment that would have created a special abortion litigation fund to accept donations to pay for a lawsuit.

House Bill 1215 seeks to make abortion a felony but wouldn't allow charges to be filed against a doctor who performed the procedure during an attempt to save the life of a pregnant woman.

The bill, largely drawn from the findings of the recent South Dakota abortion task force, is meant to encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States.

The Legislature accepts and concurs with the conclusion of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization.

But for Madison Avenue, the face of the United States that has emerged from these Games is an unattractive sell of bad manners and poor sports.

"It's probably the most hyped and most disappointing Olympic team we've had," Bob Williams, the president of Burns Entertainment & Sports Marketing, said Wednesday by telephone from Chicago.

The skier Bode Miller was weighed down by expectations and a few extra pounds. He did not win a medal in four events in the mountains at Sestriere — 60 miles from here — with one event remaining. After missing a gate in the combined, one of his best events, Miller said, "At least now, I don't have to go all the way to Torino" to pick up the medal.

Jacobellis won no style points turning a sure victory in the inaugural women's Olympic snowboardcross into a silver medal when she tried to show off with a trick and crashed yards from the finish line. She immediately returned to the United States, saying, "I'm excited to go back home and have a nice steak and a normal-sized bathroom."

Chad Hedrick's speedskating victory in the 5,000 meters has been overshadowed by his ungraciousness in defeat in the team pursuit, the 1,000 and the 1,500, and his open feud with teammate Shani Davis, the first black athlete to win an individual gold medal in the Winter Olympics. "I'm here to win," Hedrick said in dismissing his bronze medal in the 1,500. "It's all or nothing."

Hedrick and Davis shook hands during Wednesday night's medal ceremony for the 1,500, but that was a rare public show of civility between the skaters.

Lanktree said: "It may sound self-righteous, but there's a general hope when people watch the Olympics that sportsmanship will prevail. We're used to trash-talking and silly end-zone dances, but the Olympics are about sportsmanship."

[snip]

Salvaging positive spin has been largely left to Cohen. She is leading the competition entering the women's figure skating long program Thursday and could rise above her American teammates in marketing appeal by winning the gold medal. She replaced Michelle Kwan as the face of figure skating after Kwan withdrew with an injury shortly after arriving here.

If Cohen can protect the lead she earned in the short program and become the third consecutive American to win the Olympic women's singles, marketers agree she will be the enduring face of these Games.

"The big names have fallen by the wayside," Bob Dorfman, the executive creative director for Pickett Advertising, said Wednesday in a telephone interview from San Francisco. "Now it's Sasha Cohen's game to win or lose. If she wins a gold, she'll be golden with the marketers. If she wins silver or bronze, it will be seen as a bit of a disappointment."

[snip]

Dorfman called [half-pipe gold medalist Shaun] White a dark horse worth watching in the endorsement race. "He has great hair and a great nickname," Dorfman said of the redheaded White, who is known as the Flying Tomato. White has been on the cover of Sports Illustrated and Rolling Stone. He appeared Wednesday on Martha Stewart's television show.

White already had a cult following and is a millionaire several times over, in part because of endorsement deals signed well before the Games. Cheek, however, could be one of the most unexpected beneficiaries of the Americans' me-first attitude.

The 26-year-old Cheek, who is as thin as a ray of sunshine, exuded warmth, team spirit and self-deprecating humor. Chris Witty, a five-time United States Olympian who carried the flag in the opening ceremony, wants to see Cheek get his star turn.

"I hope that's what America's looking for," she said, referring to Cheek's wholesome image. "I worry, though. We've become so much of a pop culture, in-your-face society."

In fact, when Jon Bond, co-chairman of Kirshenbaum Bond & Partners, a marketing agency in New York, was asked about Cheek's potential in the advertising market, he responded, "Has he won anything yet?"

The ties with bin Laden and the Taliban reach far back into the '90s. Prominent Persian Gulf officials, including members of the UAE royal family, and businessmen would fly to Kandahar on UAE and private jets for hunting expeditions, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2001. In addition to ranking UAE ministers, these parties included Saudi big wigs like Prince Turki, the former Saudi intelligence minister who now is ambassador to the U.S.

General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, was quoted on MSNBC in September, 2003 saying, "They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.''

Bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar joined the hunting parties, and there are suspicions Al Qaeda and Taliban personnel are smuggled out on returning flights.

Here is one report, sourced to the 9-11 Commission, appearing in Paul Thompson's 9-11 timeline:

"February 1999: Bin Laden Missile Strike Called Off for Fear of Hitting Persian Gulf Royalty. Intelligence reports foresee the presence of bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan for about a week. Information on his presence appears reliable, so preparations are made to target his location with cruise missiles. However, intelligence also puts an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and members of the royal family from that country in the same location. Bin Laden is hunting with the Emirati royals, as he did with leaders from the UAE and Saudi Arabia on other occasions (see 1995-2001). Policy makers are concerned that a strike might kill a prince or other senior officials, so the strike never happens. A top UAE official at the time denies that high-level officials are there, but evidence subsequently confirms their presence. (9-11 Commission Report, 3/24/04 (B))"

It remains a key center of operations for Victor Bout, the notorious arms dealer, with ties to Taliban and Al Qaeda. There were also ties to the infamous BCCI.

As the Financial Times put it, in the UAE, "Western fraud investigators may find a link here or a connection there, with a person suspected of breaking western laws. But in Dubai, and its neighbor Sharjah, trails tend to vanish like wind-blown tracks in desert sands . . . Secrecy keeps everyone guessing—and speculating . . . 'Medieval feudalism' is how one senior western banker described Dubai's style of government, 'with a veneer of 21st century regulations.' "

The administration signed off on the deal after it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a closed interagency panel chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow.

Snow was chairman of CSX, a rail firm that, according to the New York Daily News, sold its own port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, a year after Snow left to head Treasury. The Treasury Department didn't respond to a request for comment.

Last month, Bush nominated David Sanborn, who heads DP World's European and Latin American operations, to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said Sanborn does work for the company, but "we're told he had nothing to do with the transaction."

What kind of empire are we if we have to outsource our coastline to a group of sheiks who don't recognize Israel, in a country where money was laundered for the 9/11 attacks? And that let A. Q. Kahn, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, smuggle nuclear components through its port to Libya, North Korea and Iran?

It's mind-boggling that President Bush ever agreed to let an alliance of seven emirs be in charge of six of our ports. Although, as usual, Incurious George didn't even know about it until after the fact. (Neither did Rummy, even though he heads one of the agencies that green-lighted the deal.)

Same old pattern: a stupid and counterproductive national security decision is made in secret, blowing off checks and balances, and the president's out of the loop.

Was W. too busy not calling Dick Cheney to find out why he shot a guy to not be involved in a critical decision about U.S. security? What is he waiting for — a presidential daily brief warning, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack U.S. Ports?"

Our ports are already nearly naked in terms of security. Only about 5 percent of the containers coming into the country are checked. And when the White House assures us that the Homeland Security Department will oversee security at the ports, is that supposed to make us sleep better? Not after the chuckleheaded Chertoff-and-Brownie show on Capitol Hill.

That day after I studied the Abu Ghraib images, I stumbled over gay sex again. This time, it was in a conversation with a Media Guru about the upcoming Academy Awards. He saw a ratings disaster. "After Jon Stewart's opening segment," he said, "everyone will change the channel."

"What makes you think so?"

"This country isn't going to show up to watch 'Brokeback Mountain' win a bunch of awards."

He's probably right. It doesn't matter that "Brokeback" has out-earned all of the Best Picture nominees. Or that Bill O'Reilly's prophesy --- "This movie does not do big box office outside the big cities. It won't. They're not going to go see the gay cowboys in Montana" --- has been proven wrong, not just in "liberal" Missoula and Helena but in hard-core Billings and other "Red" strongholds as well.

So here's my question: Why are so many Americans --- most of them living where there's no uncloseted homosexual for miles --- so full of fear and hate for gay men? (Gay women are another story; just ask any horny guy.) Why is gay sex unacceptable within our borders, but ideal to export to foreign torture chambers? Why, of all our urgent issues, is homosexuality right up there at the top?

I thought of no end of reasons, few profound. So, on a whim, I phoned Philip Slater, the distinguished sociologist best known for his 1970 classic, The Pursuit of Loneliness. Dr. Slater has clearly taken oddball calls before; he was willing to think aloud with me.

There was a study, he told me, of reactions to heterosexual pornography and gay pornography. Two groups of men were tested: one gay, one of men who described themselves as "homophobic." Both were electronically wired so they could be measured for sexual arousal. Interestingly, the homophobes were not especially aroused by the male/female porn. What turned them on? The gay porn. Which presents the question: Why do homophobes hang around gay bars to beat up gay men when they could be at straight bars meeting women?

Then Slater suggested a more provocative question: Why are people on the Christian and political Right so angry when they seem to be winning?

I suggested some sort of twisted sexual rage --- their religions limited their sexual expression and that made them jealous of those who felt unfettered by religious constraints.

Slater had another response: The Christian Right and the political conservatives are not winning. And they know it. That's what infuriates them.

Slater briefly took me through a line of argument that he explains fully in a dazzlingly upbeat essay, America is Polarized. In brief, he sees America --- and the planet --- undergoing "the most revolutionary cultural shift in the history of our species." In response. we tend to join one of two camps: "Control Culture," which clings to rigid, traditional beliefs, and "Connecting Culture," which aims to knock down walls and boundaries.

To read this essay is to be greatly cheered. The spread of democracy, the Women's Movement, the global economy, the ecology movement, the Internet --- everything reasonable people care about is a manifestation of the Connecting Culture. And that culture is growing fast, fueled by technology, global communication, planetary awareness and what Slater calls "the decreasing utility of war."

Ever since we were blessed with the Bush presidency, I've been searching for a way to look at what's happening in this country that doesn't make me feel sick at heart. Slater may not have the ultimate answer --- but he gets you to 30,000 feet fast. From there, you can look around for yourself. At the very least, you can feel the beginning of compassion for those who feel the need to be in "Control" --- people so freaked out by change that they fixate on gays.

Mr. Bush's presidency may be caught in a profound malaise, but he can still rehabilitate himself to some degree — if he acts quickly and decisively to reshuffle his administration and approach to governing.

The obvious model for Mr. Bush is Ronald Reagan's presidency when it was in a similar tailspin in 1987. The Iran-contra scandal, the failure of the Bork nomination and the stock market plunge left the Reagan administration "paralyzed" and "dead in the water," pundits wrote. A National Journal headline said, "Reagan Now Viewed as an Irrelevant President."

So Mr. Reagan systematically overhauled his presidency. He reached out to Congressional Democrats and appointed a bipartisan commission of three respected statesmen — John Tower, Ed Muskie and Brent Scowcroft — to investigate Iran-contra. He fired or accepted resignations from two national security aides, John Poindexter and Oliver North. He also fired his chief of staff, Donald Regan, and replaced him with Howard Baker, who was respected by both parties.

Mr. Reagan spoke to the nation, accepting personal responsibility for the scandal. "No excuses," he said. "It was a mistake." Mr. Reagan also moderated his agenda, and his approval rating rose from 40 percent in 1987 to 64 percent when he left office.

The other model Mr. Bush could turn to is ... himself. After Governor Bush suffered a stunning 18-point loss to John McCain in the New Hampshire primary in February 2000, not all the efforts on Mr. Bush's behalf were aboveboard. But Mr. Bush himself did completely retool his campaign. He swiped Mr. McCain's central campaign theme, the need for reform, and appeared with banners declaring, "A Reformer with Results."

Mr. Bush borrowed Mr. McCain's speaking style — more informal and funny. He even tried to pretend that he liked reporters.

But Mr. Bush today is not retooling; he's hunkering down in the bunker. Instead of the Reagan approach of 1987, it's the Nixon approach of 1973. It just increases the national polarization and doesn't help Mr. Bush.

So he should start over. For starters, here are four suggestions:

The North Carolina Republican Party asked its members this week to send their church directories to the party, drawing furious protests from local and national religious leaders.

"Such a request is completely beyond the pale of what is acceptable," said the Rev. Richard Land, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

During the 2004 presidential race, the Bush-Cheney campaign sent a similar request to Republican activists across the country. It asked churchgoers not only to furnish church directories to the campaign, but also to use their churches as a base for political organizing.

The tactic was roundly condemned by religious leaders across the political spectrum, including conservative evangelical Christians. Ten professors of ethics at major seminaries and universities wrote a letter to President Bush in August 2004 asking him to "repudiate the actions of your re-election campaign," and calling on both parties to "respect the integrity of all houses of worship."

Officials of the Republican National Committee maintained that the tactic did not violate federal tax laws that prohibit churches from endorsing or opposing candidates for office, and they never formally renounced it. But Land said he thought the GOP had backed down.

"I heard nothing further about it, so my assumption was that it stopped, at least at the national level," he said.

Yesterday, the Greensboro News & Record reported that the North Carolina Republican Party was collecting church directories, and it quoted two local pastors as objecting to the practice. The Rev. Richard Byrd Jr. of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Greensboro said anyone who sent in a directory "would be betraying the trust of the membership," and the Rev. Ken Massey of the city's First Baptist Church said the request was "encroaching on sacred territory."

Chris Mears, the state party's political director, made the request in a Feb. 15 memo titled "The pew and the ballot box" that was sent by e-mail to "Registered Republicans in North Carolina."

Mears said the "Republican National Committee has completed a study on grass-roots activity that reveals that people who regularly attend church usually vote Republican when they vote."

"In light of this study's findings, it is imperative that we register, educate and get these potential voters from the pew to the ballot box. To do this we must know who these people are," the memo continued.

"I am requesting that you collect as many church directories as you can and send them to me in an effort to fully register, educate and energize North Carolina's congregations to vote in the 2006 elections," it said.

It added that the "North Carolina Republican Party holds your church's directory in strict confidence" and will not use it "to solicit church members for any other reason."

By not taxing churches, the government is prevented from directly interfering with how those churches operate. By the same token, those churches are also prevented from directly interfering with how the government operates in that they cannot endorse any political candidates, they cannot campaign on behalf of any candidates, and they cannot attack any political candidate such that the effectively endorse that person’s opponent.

What this means is that charitable and religious organizations which receive a 501(c)(3) tax exemption have a clear and simple choice to make: they can engage in religious activities and retain their exemption, or they can engage in political activity and lose it, but they cannot engage in political activity and retain their exemption.

What sorts of things are churches and other religious organizations allowed to do? They can invite political candidates to speak so long as they don’t explicitly endorse them. They can speak out about a wide variety of political and moral issues, including very controversial matters like abortion and euthanasia, war and peace, poverty and civil rights.

Commentary on such issues can appear in church bulletins, in purchased advertisements, in news conferences, in sermons, and wherever else the church or church leaders would like their message to be transmitted. What does matter, however, is that such comments are limited to the issues and do not stray towards where candidates and politicians stand on those issues.

Congressman DENNIS HASTERT (IL):
I am saddened that there is clear and convincing evidence that the President lied. I look to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. According to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65, impeachment concerns `offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse of violation of some public trust.' In this Nation, all men are created equal. Simply put, the President in our representative democracy is not a sovereign who is above the law. The President's inability to abide by the law, the Constitution and my conscience have all led me to the solemn conclusion that impeachment articles must be passed.

Congressman HENRY HYDE (IL):
To permit the chief executive enforcing those laws to cast them aside as he pleases would, in effect, sanction such actions. To do nothing would be to place a stamp of approval on illicit conduct and transfer power to the executive branch, thus upsetting the system of checks and balances devised by the Framers. It would cheapen the law, which, in turn, would cheapen the work by this House.
A Republic is so difficult to maintain because it demands greater sacrifice and restraint on the part of the ruler and than the ruled. Part of this sacrifice is that our leaders are held to a higher standard of conduct as they set the example for the rest of the citizenry and are placed in a position of trust.

Congressman JOHN BOEHNER (OH):
Under the Constitution that we swore to defend, these are serious crimes, crimes that our constituents would go to prison for, and do we hold the President, the top-ranking law enforcement official in our country, to a lower standard? John Locke once wrote, `Where the law ends, tyranny begins.'
Mr. Speaker, if we believe in our Constitution, then the law does not stop at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
In our constitutional democracy, no one, not even the President, is above the law. None of us sought the burden of impeachment when we ran for this office, but every one of us raised our right hand and swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Who are we to ignore that obligation by turning a blind eye to crimes by the leader of our government?

Congressman LAMAR SMITH (TX):
Our entire justice system rests on the rule of law. Without it,
we would not enjoy a civilized and democratic society. To carve out exceptions for anyone, particularly the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, would be to undermine this rule of law.

For the benefit of our country, to set an example for our children, our grandchildren and future generations, we must maintain our high ideals.
That the President has failed to meet the standard does not mean we should lower it.

Congresswoman ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN (FL):
Certainly, the President has the same right as everyone else to the equal and unfettered protection of our judicial system. This process we undergo today is about whether we will ever again be able to honestly say to ourselves and to our children that we live in a country where no one is above the law. I still believe in that country. It's not a perfect country. Unfortunately, there is hypocrisy, there is dishonesty, there is evasion of laws. These things surely exist in that country I believe in. But if by our actions today we sanction hypocrisy, if by our vote we ratify dishonesty, if by our vote we permit evasion of laws at the very highest level of our Government, then we will have forevermore surrendered the thing that makes us uniquely American--a free, yet legal, society.

The 5,000-acre tomato field in southwestern Florida sure doesn't look like heaven. Bulldozers scrape the land flat while clusters of Porta Pottis signal an undeniable earthiness. But soon a massive cathedral will rise from this barren spot. Reaching 100 feet in the air behind a 65-foot crucifix, the Oratory will anchor Ave Maria, a whole new town and Roman Catholic university 30 miles east of Naples. Ground was officially broken last week, and the plan is to build 11,000 homes—likely drawing families who already hold the church at the center of their lives.

For Tom Monaghan, the devout Catholic who founded Domino's Pizza and is now bankrolling most of the initial $400 million cost of the project, Ave Maria is the culmination of a lifetime devoted to spreading his own strict interpretation of Catholicism. Though he says nonbelievers are welcome, Monaghan clearly wants the community to embody his conservative values. He controls all the commercial real estate in town (along with his developing partner, Barron Collier Cos.) and is asking pharmacies not to carry contraceptives. If forced to choose between two otherwise comparable drugstores, Barron Collier would favor the one that honored that request, says its president and CEO, Paul Marinelli. Discussing his life as a millionaire Catholic who puts his money where his faith is, Monaghan says: "I believe all of history is just one big battle between good and evil. I don't want to be on the sidelines."

The ACLU of Florida is worried about how he's playing the game. "It is completely naive to think this first attempt [to restrict access to contraception] will be their last," says executive director Howard Simon. Armed with a 1946 Supreme Court opinion that "ownership [of a town] does not always mean absolute dominion," Simon will be watching Ave Maria for any signs of Monaghan's request's becoming a demand. Planned Parenthood is similarly alarmed. So far, Naples Community Hospital, which plans to open a clinic in Ave Maria Town, says it will not prescribe any birth control to students. Will others be able to get the pill? "For the general public, the answer is probably yes, but not definitely yes," says hospital point man Edgardo Tenreiro. The Florida attorney general's office says the issue of limiting access will likely have to be worked out in court. Barron Collier and Monaghan say they're following Florida law.

MR. RUSSERT: Mary Matalin, the last number in that Time magazine poll is the overall approval of the vice president, and here it is. Approve: 29 percent; disapprove 41 percent. A 29 percent approval rating. Will that hamper the vice president's effectiveness in terms of governing, or helping fellow Republicans in the midterm elections?

MS. MATALIN: Absolutely not. Why--I've heard this repeatedly for six years. He's been the whipping boy for the liberals for six years and whenever he does go out on this show or he puts something on the top of his speech, he carries the day with his message, he broke during the campaign, he wins the debate, so no, it doesn't diminish his effectiveness, nor has his role in any way been diminished at the White House.

MR. GREGORY: If you thought he did everything right, why is it that you ultimately--if the vice president said, "I did everything right," by disclosing it the way he did, why did you do a big national interview this week?

MS. MATALIN: Because you went on a jihad, David. For four days you went on a Jihad.


MR. GREGORY: And that's an unfortunate use of that word, by the way. This is not what that was.

MS. MATALIN: Oh, OK. All right. How--were you saving up for that line?

MS. DOWD: Mary, it isn't only the press. He blows off the FISA courts, he blows off the Geneva Conventions, he blows off the U.N. to go to Iraq. He wants to blow off everything. He's got a fever of about presidential erosion just the way he had a fever about going into Iraq.

MR. GIGOT: A hunting incident--the vice president can defend himself, but a hunting incident is a little different than the FISA court issue and the NSA.

MS. DOWD: But it's part of same pattern.

MR. GIGOT: It is not--it's--how about a little human empathy? I mean, he shot his friend. He's--it's really one of these incidents where I think we can all stand back and say, "Let's have a debate about the FISA Courts. Let's have a big debate about the NSA wiretaps. Those are important issues." This is a very different kind of circumstance.

MS. DOWD: But then he shot his friend and blames his friend.

[snip]

MS. MATALIN: Putting aside the delicious hypocrisy there, what a missed opportunity. What if Mrs. Clinton had come out and said, "Do you know, I'm not a hunter, but lived in Arkansas and I understand this is an accident. These sorts of accidents are not infrequent. I don't agree with Dick Cheney on many things, as you know, but I do know Lynn and Dick Cheney and I have to believe like any human being that he must be feeling awful right now for shooting his friend. And most of all, I don't know Harry Whittington, but there's a man lying in a hospital bed and I think we should all pass our thoughts and prayers along to him. Now, I'd like to talk about the serious business of this nation, things that I do not agree with the vice president on." Well, Maureen Dowd, the diva of the smart set would be swooning. Moms across the country would be saying, "Hey, she thinks like me. That's right. A guy shoots his friend. That's not relative to my life. Let's move on to serious issues." No, that was a politically stupid thing to do, beside the delicious and just absurd hypocrisy of the forthcomingness of an administration.

MS. DOWD: But I think reporters would have had a lot of empathy for the vice president if he hadn't sent people out for four days to blame the victim. I mean, you know, I went hunting with Reagan and Bush Sr. and I've been on all these Republican hunting trips, and--but I've learned a lot about hunting this week. And the thing I've learned is that the shooter bears total responsibility for where everyone in the party is before he shoots, and they shoot abreast, not while someone's fetching a duck. So for him to send all these people out to blame this guy for so many days was not appropriate.

MR. GREGORY: I just wonder what Mary Matalin and others would have said if Vice President Gore had accidentally shot someone with similar facts and the press corps was pressing hard for answers and if Mary or others wouldn't think we would press just as hard for answers in that circumstance with this kind of story, I think that's mistaken.

MS. DOWD: Well, I do think, you know, I appreciate the vice president's attempts to put on a sweet pink tie and, you know, to tell Wyoming about, you know, his lust as a newlywed. But I think Mary had a very difficult job humanizing Dick Cheney, because I don't think he has given us much chance to see him as a human being.

MR. RUSSERT: David Gregory:

MR. GREGORY: I think it's important to always try to turn the temperature down, as Mary suggests, but I do think there's a tension between the White House press corps and the administration, and I don't think that that should be demonized as a political disagreement. It's, in some ways, healthy, and it's a reality.

MR. RUSSERT: Paul Gigot:

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think--well, let's make some distinctions between stories that really matter, and we ought to fight and fight hard about it and—where secrecy is an issue, and let's distinguish between those and what are really human accidents.

MR. RUSSERT: Mary Matalin:

MS. MATALIN: You know, in the average American, in the parallel universe, it's not about us, it's not about President Bush, it's not about Dick Cheney, it's about them, and they would like us all to focus on what are we doing for them? Well, let's have debate on policies and let's distinguish political events of no consequence to the nation from those that are.

I only caught the bitter end of Meet the Press so I'm not sure what provoked Mary Matalin's pout-fest (I'm sure Arianna will issue a full forensics report later), but she made quite a petulant spectacle of herself, shaking her head from side to side in silent, lemon-puss disagreement whenever Maureen Dowd and David Gregory made mildly critical comments about Shotgun Cheney. (Another prominent deployer of The Disapproving Headshake is sister conservative Kate O'Beirne, who wields it to upstage other panelists and ensure herself additional face-time: after her reaction shot, the host invariably calls on her next to vocalize her mute dissent. "Kate, I noticed you nodding your head..."--as if anyone could not notice!) Even without the immature pouting and pissy expression, Matalin would have been a car wreck in repose: With a bad haircut topping a mistaken facelift and a ghastly floral pin that looked like spray-painted aluminum, she looked like the Beltway's Madwoman of Chaillot. Maybe defending the defensible is getting to her, and the acid reflux has gone to her brain.

Rick Santorum (Republican)
On abortion -- pro-life
On stem cell research -- opposed
Accepts PAC money -- yes
War in Iraq -- it was the right thing to do
Troops in Iraq -- stay the course
National Health Care -- opposed
Raising the minimum wage -- supports an increase of $1.10
NAFTA/CAFTA -- supports CAFTA; opposed NAFTA
Alito confirmation to Supreme Court -- supports confirmation

Bob Casey, Jr. (Democrat)
On abortion -- pro-lfe
On stem cell research -- opposed
Accepts PAC money -- yes
War in Iraq -- supported
Troops in Iraq -- stay the course
National Health Care -- opposed
Raising the minimum wage -- supports
NAFTA/CAFTA -- opposed both
Alito confirmation to Supreme Court -- supports confirmation

"Count me among those who don't care about them and won't watch them. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention,"

U.S. speed skater Shani Davis rose above all his challenges Saturday at Oval Lingotto. Chad Hedrick could not see beyond his thinly veiled contempt for his teammate.

Davis made history, becoming the first black to win an individual gold medal at the Winter Olympics, in the 1,000-meter race. Hedrick made little effort to be the team player he virtually accuses Davis of not being.

Davis shared his moment with U.S. silver medalist Joey Cheek, while Hedrick refused to turn the other one in assessing Davis' gold-medal performance.

"Shani skated fast today, and that's all I have to say about it," said Hedrick, who finished sixth in his weakest discipline.

In the battle of two strong-willed personalities, score Saturday's round to Davis. He won gold and was gracious in accepting it. He skated exceptionally well in his marquee event and didn't allow himself to get drawn into a war of words with his foil.

Criticized for not participating in the team pursuit race - the Americans on Wednesday failed to reach the semifinals - Davis remained unapologetic for his decision. He is an individualist who grew up dreaming of winning Olympic gold in the 1,000 meters and realizes some take issue with his thinking.

"I'm a different type of person," Davis said "I have a different charisma. A lot of people don't understand me."

Hedrick obviously is one of them.

There's nothing wrong with the free-spirited Texan expressing his opinion. It's part of what makes him endearing. But Hedrick's mouth also can make him look petty. That's how he appeared Saturday in the media mixed zone, all puffed up and unable to let his rivalry with Davis simmer for the good of the team.

He wasn't the only one taking jabs at Davis, who trains apart from the team in Calgary. Casey FitzRandolph suggested that Davis has alienated himself.
"If (Davis) feels it's him against the rest of the world, then it's him who pitted himself against the world," FitzRandolph said.

Hedrick, however, is the one who can't resist taking the most digs. He implies Davis lacks patriotism for saving himself for the 1,000 and not competing in the team pursuit. If Hedrick keeps beating the same drum, he'll become a walking Spirit-of-76 parody.