Something that keeps going through my mind about this election, which according to all pollsters is a neck-and-neck affair, is that we could once again end up with a bitterly contested outcome. If the results in 2000 were bizarre, and they were, isn't it sad that we are faced with a similar prospect because, frankly, there has been no real reform of our system in the intervening four years. Why were changes not made after the last election? I can well understand the concerns of our leaders back in the 18th century - the electoral college (wherein each state gets a number of electors equal to its Senate and House delegations), was a realistic filter between the people who elect it and the president whom it elects. Times have changed and to borrow a line from a Financial Times editorial, "Is the US election system a threat to its democracy?" Maybe yes, if we can't find a way to make all of America's votes count.

How about the latest endorsements for President Bush (Oh, how I would love the opportunity to ask the Chief Executive how he reacts to the support he's been given). On Monday President Putin of Russia came out strongly for the re-election of President Bush and the next day, the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Hasan Rowhani, stated that Mr.Bush was the choice of his people for re-election. As Associated Press stated. Iran "has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues."

Isn't it amazing that Iran presses on with its construction of nuclear weaponry, undaunted by the proximity of American forces waging war in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan? Isn't it strange that North Korea appears to be equally undeterred in its quest for "weapons of mass destruction." Could the reason possibly be, in both cases, because they have seen how bogged down we are in Iraq. Maybe they feel that we will go no further and that major nations no longer have the stomached or a strong enough coalition to act militarily. Now is the time to reach a diplomatic agreement with Iran and, thank God, Britain, Germany and France are already trying to do just that and we, wisely, are keeping out of the way for a while. If the effort fails then it would seem most likely that the Europeans would join with us and the UN Security Council in seeking tough economic sanctions and whatever else it might take to end Iran's nuclear threat.

There is a story circulating that claims we know almost exactly where Bin Laden is - he is supposedly hiding in Pakistan in South Waziristan in the Baluchistan Mountains. (I don't know the zip code). The source of the story is a man with all the right credentials. It's John Lehman a member in good standing of the 9-11 commission. According to him ( the Sec. of State, Colin Powell has almost made the same claim), "There is an American presence in the area, but we just can't send in troops. If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now." According to Mr.Lehman, who was the former secretary of the Navy under President Reagan, "We'll get Bin Laden eventually, but not now."
If only the president had not gone to war with Iraq, but instead had truly concentrated on terrorism we might well have cut of Bin Laden's money supplies from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. We have strange friends.

11 days, and counting.
Maybe we'll see moving vans at the White House.