Take a glance at the sidebar and notice how much money Rush Limbaugh’s auction has raised so far for the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Division.

It looks like Harry Reid’s letter, signed by 41 Democratic Senators may well reach or exceed the million dollar mark.

These bidders have all had to be approved, so you can be assured the people have the money to buy this letter and give to this wonderful military support organization.

If ever there was a report which I hope is on target it is this one:

An all-out battle for control of Pakistan’s restive North and South Waziristan is about to commence between the Pakistani military and the Taliban and al-Qaeda adherents who have made these tribal areas their own.

According to a top Pakistani security official who spoke to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, the goal this time is to pacify the Waziristans once and for all. All previous military operations - usually spurred by intelligence provided by the Western coalition - have had limited objectives, aimed at specific bases or sanctuaries or blocking the cross-border movement of guerrillas. Now the military is going for broke to break the back of the Taliban and a-Qaeda in Pakistan and reclaim the entire area.

The fighting that erupted two weeks ago, and that has continued with bombing raids against guerrilla bases in North Waziristan - turning thousands of families into refugees and killing more people than any India-Pakistan war in the past 60 years - is but a precursor of the bloodiest battle that is coming.

Lining up against the Pakistani Army will be the Shura (council) of Mujahideen comprising senior al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders, local clerics, and leaders of the fighting clans Wazir and Mehsud (known as the Pakistani Taliban). The shura has long been calling the shots in the Waziristans, imposing sharia law and turning the area into a strategic command and control hub of global Muslim resistance movements, including those operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This would be welcome news for the coalition forces in Afghanistan. If President Musharraf is willing to take these measures just take a look at who might be eliminated from the terrorist ranks:

According to intelligence sources, during Ramadan, the Taliban’s entire top command, including Moulvi Abdul Kabeer, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Sirajuddin Haqqani, Nasiruddin Haqqani, and Mullah Mansoor Dadullah were in North Waziristan to launch a post-Ramadan offensive in southeast Afghanistan. The Pakistani military engaged the militants well in advance to block their offensive plan, but the same militant command is believed to still be in North Waziristan.

Hat tip to Right Wing Nut House. Stop by and read Rick Moran’s excellent post on this article. I know I agree whole heartedly with his final paragraph.

Whatever the reason, Musharraf has evidently decided to commit his army to the destruction of the Taliban. And if he’s successful, it might just turn out to be the most significant battle in the war against Islamic extremism to date.

The remarks made today by Representatative Stark on the floor of the House are reprehensible.
To accuse a sitting President of amusing himself with the death of our troops goes well beyond behavior which should ever be condoned by any of our elected officials.

These words were uttered during the debate to override the President’s veto of the expansion of the S-CHIP program. The leadership in the House should demand an apology from Rep. Stark but I certainly will not hold my breath. Republicans need to make clear that remarks such as these if made by their side of the aisle would receive calls for at the least an apology if not censure. It is outrageous that this should stand on any level without serious challenge.

At this time it appears the House has not succeeded
in their attempt to override.

12:16 - House fails to override, 273-156. The Democrats picked up 8 votes, and I believe the Republicans gained 11. This means that Congress will have to act quickly to maintain S-CHIP benefits to current qualifiers — and that means some horse trading with the White House.

*Update: Senator Reid is in no mood for compromise with the White House:

The bill is bipartisan, and the Senate has shown it could override a veto. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has replied with an emphatic “no” when asked if he would seek a compromise with the administration.

I would like to say I’m surprised but this House vote was a stinging defeat for the Majority Leader. He may find in order to save this program he will have to deal with a President who continues to thwart many of his efforts [HT: AJ Strata] not ony on this program but also attempts to threaten our national security.

So much for that lame duck President we heard so much about.

*Update 2:Republican Leader in the House issues a statement:

WASHINGTON, D.C. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement regarding remarks made on the House floor by Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) during the debate on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP):

“Our troops in Iraq are fighting against al-Qaeda and other radical jihadists hellbent on killing the people we are sent here to represent. Congressman Stark’s statement dishonors not only the Commander-in-Chief, but the thousands of courageous men and women of America’s armed forces who believe in their mission and are putting their lives on the line for our freedom and security. Congressman Stark should retract his statement and apologize to the House, our Commander-in-Chief, and the families of our soldiers and commanders fighting terror overseas.”

During debate on the SCHIP children’s health care legislation today, Rep. Stark stated: “You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”

The above is a Drudge Report flash. I will update accordingly if there are changes.

This report states Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas is expected to drop out of the presidential race on Friday.

If this is true the reason is simple. He hasn’t raised enough money to continue. It’s a shame people have put so much money into winning this office that an ordinary person is prohibited from running because he can’t raise millions of dollars.

Dennis Hastert has made it official that he is going to resign before the end of his term.

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert will resign his seat in Congress later this year, and not serve out the remainder of his term, FOX News has learned.

The Illinois Republican has informed the House GOP leadership of his early departure, according to Republican sources. No date has been chosen for a formal announcement, which was originally scheduled for Thursday, sources told FOX News, but the resignation is expected to become effective in December or January.

Hastert’s leaving in the middle of the 110th Congress means his Illinois district will have to hold a special election, one more likely to favor a GOP candidate since the party is expected to be more adept at turning out voters in a low-turnout special election.

The 11-term congressman announced on Aug. 17 that he will be stepping down, but did not say whether it would be at the end of the session or before then. He is one of 12 Republican lawmakers to announce their retirements this year.

This will give another Republican or a Democrat the advantage of incumbency in the 2008 election.

The next in our series of GOP candidates in order to inform our readers of at least a part of what the candidates represent:

Morgan Stanley, the second-largest shareholder in the New York Times has sold its 7% interest in the company.

Hassan Elmasry, managing director of Morgan Stanley Investment Management, unsuccessfully challenged the Sulzberger family’s control of New York Times Co. through super-voting stock that gives them a board majority. Shareholders owning 42 percent of the company, parent of the namesake newspaper and Boston Globe, withheld support for directors at the publisher’s April annual meeting.

“This guy has been speaking for a lot of people who are too discreet to speak up and challenge management,” said Porter Bibb, a managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners LLC in New York and a former New York Times Co. executive.

New York Times shares slid 43 cents, or 2.3 percent, to $18.48 at 4:04 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, the lowest since January 1997. The stock has declined 24 percent this year.

I wonder how much money the Sulzberger and Ochs families lost on this deal today. And their fortunes may be slipping further:

If Elmasry has sold the stock, “it’s almost a dead certainty there would be a bailout of other institutional holders,” Bibb said in an interview. “If that happens and there is a sharp drop in the share price, the Sulzbergers have to sit down and decide whether now is not a good time to take the company private.”

T. Rowe Price Group Inc., New York Times’ largest shareholder with a 14 percent stake, had no immediate comment, said spokesman Steve Norwitz. Morgan Stanley held 10.5 million New York Times shares, or a 7.3 percent stake, as of June 30, making the company the second-largest institutional investor.

If the NYT wishes to stack the board of directors so none of the shareholders actually have a say in how the company is run (and rumor has it it’s not run very well under Pinch Sulzberger) then perhaps the best thing is for them to go private.

They are about to get some expected stiff competition from Rupert Murdoch once he closes the deal on the Wall Street Journal.

If that happens it will be nice to see more than just the liberal voice in our newspapers but a little bit of something conservative or at least balanced.

I don’t speak diplomatese, but the following is a statement from the Syrian representative to the UN’s annual conference on disarmament.

He appears to have verified Israel did hit a nuclear facility in Syria, although my muddled brain doesn’t see that. He does appear to the Sept. 6 attack on Syria, but called it July 6 when he made his speech.

Also speaking in the right of reply, the representative of Syria said that the delegation of Israel had spoken out of context yesterday. Israel had used lies and accusations, which was not useful since the entire world was aware of the objectives and practices of that “colonial” entity, which encouraged State terrorism and had never respected the resolutions adopted against it by the United Nations. There had been politically motivated acts by Israel against Syria, and, at the same time, Israel had tried to distract attention from its actions, in particular, its interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon.

Concerning the Lebanese border, he said that the Lebanese Minister of Defence had denied that anything had crossed the border, and those controlling the border had confirmed that. Syria had informed the Secretary-General of that in writing. Contacts between Lebanese and Syrian authorities had been ongoing to protect the border, and the countries had regularly reported to the Security Council on their meetings. Syria had also recently increased the number of guards on its border, preventing any transfer of weapons from Iraq or any other countries. In a letter dated 4 May, Syria had reported on that. It had also asked Europe for help in securing its border, but had not received any such assistance.

The accusations by Israel, therefore, were totally unjustified. Israel was an “enemy entity” occupying Syrian territory. Israel regularly filmed trucks carrying fruits and vegetables into the country, and had recently bombed one of them. Israel was building eight reactors in a small territory and preparing itself “in nuclear terms” for a possible war, with 20 nuclear warheads, using thousands of cluster bombs, and not providing maps to show where they were dropped or where the nuclear waste was being disposed of. It was an entity that claimed that Gaza was trying to occupy areas, when it was itself occupying territory.

Moreover, the entity that was the fourth largest exporter of lethal weapons in the world, that which violated the airspace of sovereign States and carried out military aggression against them, as had happened on 6 September against Syria, such an entity, with all those characteristics and more, had no right to go on lying without shame.

People who do speak diplomatese claim this is verification Israel hit a nuclear facility in Syria.

Diplomats familiar with the document cannot explain why July 6 was invoked, instead of Sept. 6, the date both countries say an incident occurred. A State Department source tells FOX News the best explanation is that Darwish misspoke.

The document, released by the General Assembly’s Department of Public Information, recounted Tuesday’s proceedings at the annual gathering of the U.N.’s Disarmament and International Security Committee.

What is clear is that this is the first time Syria has acknowledged its nuclear efforts.

One U.S. delegate told colleagues he could not believe his ears when the Syrian diplomat made his statement and that the resulting document was close to verbatim, and another source told FOX News the document reinforces what people heard [the Syrian representative] say in the actual debate.

Syria already has disowned the remarks, adding “such facilities do not exist in Syria.”

The state-run Syrian Arab News Agency, SANA, quoting an unnamed Foreign Ministry source, said the U.N. press release misquoted the diplomat and that Syria had made it clear that there are no such facilities in Syria.

Based on the last paragraph in the second quote, it would seem even Syria believes the Syrian delegate spilled the beans.

Maybe he’d better seek political asylum someplace.