If the "One" continues to disappoint whites, will he inspire more generalizations among whites about blacks that will poison race relations? (I don't think it is unfair to call him an AA president -- it's a comment about both him and those who voted him into office. He is not qualified for office, and was able to get there only because of white liberal guilt and pride which ignored his shortcomings in order to make a "historic" statement.)

I don't Stephen Hayes because of his attempts to defend the Bush administration by playing up the supposed connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. But his article in the Weekly Standard, to which Laurence Auster links, highlights the apparent contradictions in the rhetoric and actions of the current administration. If we are in a war on terror, should we be treating captured terrorists merely as criminals? Should they allowed to be questioned, without the protection of Miranda, for the sake of gathering intelligence about terrorist activities? (Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war only have to give their name, rank, and serial number.) If someone is caught in the act of terrorism, it should be relatively easy to convict him. Can he not then be questioned by a legitimate authority, for the protection of a community?