George W Bush, lambasted as the destroyer of peace in the Middle East, may preside over the most welcome development there since the Second World War.

Bush-bashers hate to admit it, but a smaller percentage of active-duty military personnel died during both Bush administrations than during the Reagan and Carter administrations.

The conservatives have rightly complained about the fiasco that was the CNN/YouTube debate, to say nothing of Chris Matthews' execrable moderating. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and it doesn't fit any better on that side.

Of course Mr. Musharraf doesn't want to share power. Who does? Does The Times want to share power and influence with the LA Times or with the Washington Post? Of course not.

How come all the environmentalists keep proposing things people don't want to do? Real solutions nedn't require deprivation.

By taking this preposterous action, the CIA has provided a signal service.

Having been put on the scent, the blogosphere discovered that this was only the tip of the iceberg.

Unlimited money, unlimited visibility, unlimited clout - what could possibly go wrong?

Somehow, we have reached the point where we view democracy and elections as ends in themselves. But they aren't.

Why "Hillary"? In 1980, did we have a race between Ronald and Jimmy?