Wait till next year

I don't have much to say tonight. The Mets lost today, so they'll be playing golf tomorrow. It hurts. How they could have blown the lead, I'll never know. Hopefully the GM will make some changes. I hope they have some good arms down on the farm that they can give a chance to. They need to get younger in the starting rotation and get a better bullpen.

Getting all political ..

I have not been reading Atrios long enough to know how much of a Springsteen fan he is, but this isn't anything new. Springsteen has been speaking out for a while. He's been speaking out since at least 1980(I hope the clip of him the night after Ray-gun's election is on YouTube. If it is, i'll post the link later). He spoke out during The Rising tour. He even did a number of shows on the Vote for Change tour(that included Pearl Jam and Dave Matthews among a host of others). He won't let any one silence his voice. It's one of the many reasons his fans like him, and his peers respect him.

Novakula ...

Digby has this great post over at her place today about Bob Novak and his critical comments on General Wesley Clark when we were trying to clean up the Balkans. It is another example of the Republicans hypocrisy in the whole MoveOn flap. They have been criticizing the military when it suites there ends. The traditional media is so bad, they can't use Teh Google to refute the Faux Noise brigade. I have stopped wondering when the traditional media will get their act together. They'll go bankrupt before they do.

Trouble at Shea ..

I don't pretend to know everything about sports. I am a fan like most everyone else, and as Pete Franklin(who was one of the original hosts when WFAN went to all sports) said, "Fan is short for fanatic". It means we are passionate about the teams we root for. We talk losses hard and celebrate important wins(including ones over hated rivals no matter when they occur). That said, I wish I knew what is going through Willie Randolph's head. While the offense is doing well, the bullpen is imploding. They can't hold a lead to save their life. Does he trust anyone in the pen besides Billy Wagner? Is there a reason why, at this late date, he's using six or seven guys on a regular basis when not one of them is getting the job done? I hope for his sake that he gets in the playoffs, otherwise the fans in New York will be screaming for blood. Losing a seven game lead with three weeks to play is not something that happens all the time. Whether it is fair or not, the manager is going to take the heat if they fail to make the playoffs.

"The Dean" ..

In his column in today's Washington Post, Davd "The Dean" Broder finally gets his head out of his ass long enough to mumble about the Republicans who are standing with The Decider on his threatened veto of the S-CHIP bill. He goes off the track when calling Heather Wilson(R-NM) and Ray LaHood(R-IL) two of the smartest people in the House. It just goes to show that Broder regained sanity only temporarily. Either that, or someone wrote the column for him.

Can you feel the Newtmentum?

I should acknowledge that I lifted the subject line from Steven Benen of the Carpetbagger Report(A link to his blog will be at the end of this post). What the subject line relates to has me in absolute stitches. Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House and Representative from Georgia, has said that if people raise $30 million dollars for him that he'll run for President. I am not sure whether to laugh or cry. He was a horrible Speaker. He shut down the government twice over playing games of chicken with President Clinton. He tried to impeach President Clinton, who had approval ratings twice that of the current president, while simultaneously having an affair of his own. I could go on but needless to say, it wouldn't make Newt look any better. What happened to the Republicans savior of the moment(Follywood Fred Thompson)? Has he been that much of a dud that they are turning to Gingrich to save the day? My advice to Newt? Go for it. Turn the Republican primary into the Keystone Kops. McCain, Rudy, Romney, Fred Thompson and Newt. If that can't get the Republicans excited, what can?


http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

What would FDR say?

Remember him? He was the president that said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. With that, I have to ask what Republicans are afraid of now. President Ahmadinejad of Iran is coming to visit the U.S. in the coming week. He wants to visit Ground Zero. I know McCain and Rudy hate him, but are they really that immature to stoop to his level? What happened to America acting like grown ups? Some said he wanted to celebrate the hijackers. That's a crock of shit. Ahmadinejad, as most of Iran, is Shia. The hijackers, most of whom came from Saudi Arabia, were Sunni. Despite the fact they all believe in Mohammed, they don't particularly like each other. The other complaint I hear deals with Ahmadinejad claiming the Holocaust never took place. That is a valid complaint. The problem I have with that is we have dealt with a lot of unsavory characters in the history of this country. Are we to preclude him? Isn't it better to talk to, and engage him, then to start a war? Are people afraid to debate him? He's supposed to appear at Columbia University and even take questions and the forum he is attending. Can people go and act like adults and ask him why he believes what he does? Who is hurt by having a dialog? He might change his opinions, and he might not. Besides, I thought this country believed in the First Amendment. All I have to say is that it can't hurt to ask him why he dislikes people of a different faith. If anything, he won't change his views by our bombing Iran. Engaging in dialogue does have a chance.

The Republicans and MoveOn.org

I can't say I was surprised. The knuckle dragger from Texas, Senator Cornyn, introduced a Sense of the Senate resolution criticizing MoveOn.org. Sadly, twenty two Democratic Senators voted for it. I also heard President Bush came out today and said he was dusgusted with the MoveOn.org. Was he disgusted when Saxby Chambliss ran ads comflating Max Cleland with OBL in 2004? Or the Swift Boats ads against Senator Kerry? Of course not. It's gotten to the point where it is beyond sad. The President is supposed to lead the country, not just one party. I notice he never speaks ill of his own party, but can't wait to jump on the opposition. I thought he was supposed to be the uniter. He lied about that like he's lied about everything else.

The Mets? Ugh!!!

What is up with the Mets? It's obvious something is missing. The bullpen sucks and can't hold a lead at all. I know Randolph is from the Joe Torre school of managing. Torre has a track record of success with the Yankees. Randolph can't match it. Not only that, but the Yankees are hard on the Red Sox heels while the Mets are pulling a choke like the Red Sox. Mets fans won't take too kindly to that. I know will won't pull a Lou Piniella type explosion but he better do something to right the ship. Now!!

New Morning

I have not posted in ages. A lot has happened since I last posted. Baseball has crowned a new champion. NFL Football is half way through another season. Mid-term elections were held.

It's good for the Cardinals that they won. Being a Mets fan, it was disappointing to lose in the NLCS. We were missing two of our better pitchers. Those are the breaks. It will be interesting to see what Minaya does in the offseason. Will the Mets go after Zito? That's to be determined.

The NFL season has seen its share of ups and downs. The Eagles have been very up and down. I reveled in Matt Bryant's sixty-two yard game winning field goal. I am not a Philadelphia area native, so I have no special love for the Eagles. Due to the lackluster NFC East, they are very much alive for the playoffs. Due to injuries, the NY Giants look like they might be in trouble. It all depends on how long Strahan is out.

The elections were the results a lot of us have finally been waiting for. The Democrats finally regained control of both houses of Congress. The one downer was Lieberman winning in Connecticut. I used to live there and know what kind of weasel he really is. I was rooting for Lamont. He would have made Connecticut proud. I hope Murtha wins the race for Majority Leader. He isn't the best choice, but given Murtha or Hoyer, I'll take Murtha each time. I can't wait for January. I want to see what investigations are opened. Goodness knows there are plenty of avenues they can go. Whether anyone will go to jail remains to be seen.

Bring 'em Home

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK1g69iHu1Q

Jazz Fest in New Orleans

This video says it all, thanks to Bruce of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYsSVNl8xmE

Long Time Comin'

I have not posted in a while. A busy life can do that. I should find time, but I have been lazy. I will try to post this weekend. DeLay finally gave up his reelection bid. Woohoo !! As the sarcastic saying goes ... "It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy." We'll see whether he ever gets time in jail. A few of the people that worked in his office have already pleaded guilty to charges, so time will tell. Andy Card resigned last week, only time will tell if more Bush cronies will want to get out of the oven that is Washington, D.C. right now. Hopefully it will only get hotter. I am going to post two links of blogs I read. One is just a regular person, the other is the blog of a reporter of National Politics for a local Philadelphia newspaper, the reporter's link will be the 2nd one.

http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/

http://dickpolman.blogspot.com/

They are interesting reads. I admit that I thought Polman leaned right, at least from reading his newspaper columns and stories, but his blog is down the middle.

I had a very interesting conversation last night. I finally got to IM someone whose blog I read for a few months. This person lives in the hinterlands of Canada, so yes technology stretches pretty much everywhere now. It is interesting how people know so much about things they might not have known about at all 20 years ago. When some person in Canada knows exactly what is going on in America, even better then a lot of Americans, it is scary, but for the better I think. It is just sad that some Americans can't be bothered to know what is going on in their own country. Personally, I never understood the fascination with radio hosts like Rush limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Why would someone need to have someone else tell them what to think? What ever happened to thinking for yourself? Or do some people enjoy being part of a flock? I know I don't, and I don't see why others would, unless they find comfort in numbers. The thing I don't get even more is the blind faith that people have. On the last note, I'll post next time what a person I admire greatly said about blind faith.

hhmm ....

Well it took me 3 weeks but here I am. A lot has happened in 3 weeks, Dick Cheney shot his hunting buddy. Willie Nile's new album was released today(at the end hopefully i'll have a link to his website). There is more but I do not feel like writing about it all. I will post a few links to some articles tomorrow that I have found an interesting read. I can't believe March is almost here. I will post more tomorrow, and yes I'll be better about it then I have been.


www.willienile.com

Quick note ..

I have been busy lately, but I promise to update the blog tomorrow, February 1st. I have plenty to write about.

Food for Thought

Some recent developments have made me wonder about a few things. Due to the controversy surrounding the hearings for Judge Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, and now Bin Laden's videotaped statement calling for a truce, I have some questions about both. Does any clear thinking, level headed person believe Alito when he stated he can't recall anything about CAP(Concerned Alumni of Princeton)? It makes me wonder why on a federal job application he would be proud of being a member of a racist organization. Sen. Graham from South Carolina should be ashamed of himself for leading Alito in questioning about his membership in the organization. I also must take exception to the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee(except Sen. Feingold). They did this country no good when they took the opportunity to show the country just how in love with themselves they really are. It was disturbing and disgusting. I should also mention here that while I think Senator Feingold was the only one who questioned Alito in the manner in which the whole committee should have, I am a slight bit biased as I would vote for Feingold in 2008 with out hesitation. He is not afraid of the current administration and their smear tactics.
For those of you that don't know, a videotape was aired yesterday that contained a speech by Bin Laden. On the tape he offered a truce. He didn't offer any conditions on it, not like it would make a difference. I don't know what we are waiting for with this guy. Personally, I thought the Iraqi war was a distraction from finidng this guy and bringing him to justice. The one thing this tape does make me wonder though, is if there really is another attack planned, and what exactly is it. My bigger concern is that the FBI is smart enough to follow common sense, because they didn't as relates to 9/11. While Bin Laden and his crew committed heinious acts there were steps the FBI failed to follow up on, which is what Bin Laden is counting on. It is sad that everytime something major happens, that new laws have to be enacted. Usually the laws already on the books are good enough, if they are enforced, and people use a little common sense. I mean when someone doesn't want to learn how to take off or land, only to fly while in mid air, that should raise some concern. There is a saying I heard that I often repeat, Common sense ain't so common anymore. Sad but true

30 questions for Judge Alito

This was published in the NYT (New York Times). While I am not a fan of the paper, considering the great problems they have had over the past few years, the editorial they printed is pretty good. The set of questions from six people start at this link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/opinion/09leo.html

By LEONARD A. LEO

Published: January 9, 2006

1. Justice Robert Jackson of the Supreme Court once famously wrote, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." Is the Supreme Court really either? How should that affect the way a justice carries out his role? And, reflecting on the judicial role, why do you want to be on the Supreme Court?

2. Do you think judges are at least in part responsible for the fact that, while Americans might profess reverence for the law, they often criticize the legal system? Does some of the public's criticism stem from growing use of foreign and international sources of law by some judges in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution?

3. We hear much about the important role the Supreme Court plays in interpreting and applying the Bill of Rights. But does judicial enforcement of the structural features of our Constitution - the separation of powers, federalism and the limits on Congress dictated by the enumeration of specific powers - play an important role as well in preserving liberty?

4. Justice Felix Frankfurter, whom President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed to the Supreme Court, often invoked the principle of judicial restraint. He also was quite skeptical of rigid application of precedent, saying that reversing decisions can be justified "if rooted in the Constitution itself" and that "acquiescence in a precedent does not require approval of its extension." Was Justice Frankfurter being inconsistent? Can a believer in judicial restraint also think that sometimes precedents, even longstanding ones, should be overruled?

5. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Stephen Douglas attacked Abraham Lincoln for refusing to submit to the Supreme Court's affirmation of slavery after the Dred Scott case, saying, "The Constitution of the United States provides that the Supreme Court is the ultimate tribunal." Is that true, or do the other branches of the federal government - the president and Congress - have the responsibility to exercise their own judgment as to constitutional meaning where they have the constitutional power to act?

Leonard A. Leo is the executive vice president of the Federalist Society and also has advised the George W. Bush administration and Congress on judicial matters.

By CHERYL D. MILLS

Published: January 9, 2006

1. You have advised the Senate that you will decide cases on the merits of the facts and the law, and not your personal views or preferences. Could you provide two examples of decisions you have rendered that were inconsistent with your personal views?

2. Given your November 2000 speech to the Federalist Society arguing that executive power is solely vested in the president, what role, if any, do you see for the Congress and the courts with respect to executive power?

3. You have told the Senate that you are open to the persuasive arguments of sound legal analysis. Can you give two examples of your judicial opinions that reflected a willingness to be persuaded to change your legal views based upon the legal arguments presented to you?

4. In light of your having been a member of a Princeton alumni group that opposed the university's admission of women, criticized its affirmative action policies and urged the admission of more alumni children, can you offer two examples of any efforts by you to promote gender or racial equality?

5. When applying for a job with the Reagan administration in the mid-1980's, you expressed disagreement with the "one person, one vote" principle embodied in the Supreme Court's decision in Reynolds v. Sims in 1964. Can you expand on the nature of your disagreement with this principle in this or other court decisions from the era involving voting districts and reapportionment?

Cheryl D. Mills, a former counsel to President Bill Clinton, is a professor at New York University Law School.

By KENJI YOSHINO

Published: January 9, 2006

1. Do you believe that the Constitution protects rights that do not appear in the text of the document itself and, if so, how do you think the Supreme Court should go about discerning the nature of those rights?

2. If you were sitting on the court in 1973 when it protected a woman's right to have an abortion in Roe v. Wade, would you have voted with the majority?

3. Under what conditions can the Supreme Court overrule its own precedents?

4. If you were sitting on the court in 1992 when it refused to overrule Roe because of its status as precedent, would you have voted with the majority?

5. Are there judicially enforceable limits on executive power in a time of national crisis, and, if so, what are they?

Kenji Yoshino, deputy dean for intellectual life at Yale Law School, is the author of the forthcoming "Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights."

By JOHN YOO

Published: January 9, 2006

1. What is the worst example of constitutional interpretation rendered by the Supreme Court in the last 30 years?

2. Is there any reason Roe v. Wade should be entitled to greater respect as precedent than any other decision by the Supreme Court? If not, under what conditions could the Supreme Court reverse Roe?

3. Do you believe that the 9/11 attacks put the United States in a state of war with Al Qaeda and its allies?

4. Does the Constitution require that courts provide the same legal protections to gays as to racial minorities and women?

5. Does the Constitution put the Supreme Court in the position of not just an interpreter of the Constitution, but the final and supreme interpreter, whose opinions (not just decisions) must be obeyed by the president and Congress?

John Yoo, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, is a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley.

By SCOTT TUROW

Published: January 9, 2006

1. Without regard to how you will rule, tell us what you foresee today as the five most important legal issues that the Supreme Court will be asked to review in the next decade. Take "important" to mean that the issues raised hold the greatest potential consequence for the daily life of the nation and the development of our laws.

2. Since law school, you have worked almost exclusively for the government of the United States, which you have served in either the Department of Justice, or the judicial branch, where you worked first as a law clerk, and now as a judge. Do you regard this as an ideal pedigree for an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court? Why have you never chosen to work in the private or nonprofit sectors or to represent individual clients, an experience shared by the majority of the lawyers who will come before you? And point to five decisions you have made that should allay the concerns of those who believe that because of your monochromatic legal experience, you will be predisposed to favor the government in legal disputes with individuals, especially in criminal cases or cases concerning individual rights.

3. Name the five most difficult decisions you have had to make as a judge, where the correct answer to the issues posed seemed most elusive to you and the stakes to the parties or the nation were the highest.

4. Assume for the sake of this question that the Supreme Court concludes in the future that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to have an abortion. Without stating how you would ultimately rule, but speaking simply as a constitutional expert, is there any constitutional provision that might reasonably be thought to reserve the right to regulate abortion to the states, as some Roe opponents contend? Put another way, if Roe was reversed, what constitutional provision might prevent federal efforts to impede or outlaw abortion, like statutes making it a crime to either cross state lines to seek an abortion or place in the stream of interstate commerce any medical device or implement knowing it is likely to be used for an abortion?

5. It is anticipated that you will decline to comment on cases and questions that you could be called upon to decide as a justice. But that scruple should not apply to cases that history teaches us are in all likelihood unique. Therefore, state how you would have ruled in the case of Bush v. Gore in December 2000. Beyond the principal decision, would you have joined the court's majority on Dec. 9, 2000, in voting to issue a stay, freezing the recount that had begun in response to the order of the Florida Supreme Court? If so, explain, with citation to supporting authorities, what "irreparable harm" part of the traditional legal formula for granting a stay, might have been done if the recount had continued while the United States Supreme Court was reviewing the lower court's order?

Scott Turow, a former federal prosecutor, is the author, most recently, of "Ordinary Heroes."

By STANLEY FISH

Published: January 9, 2006

1. In 1944, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent. Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in a concurring opinion that an action taken in wartime "is not to be stigmatized as lawless because like action in times of peace would be lawless." He and others in the majority believed that in times of war, security interests outweigh rights that would otherwise be controlling. Do you agree or disagree, and do you think that the issues raised by this event (for which the United States later apologized) are like or unlike the issues raised by the current detention of enemy combatants?

2. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in Rosenberger v. Rector that the University of Virginia could not refuse to finance an avowedly Christian student publication. The court reasoned that since other student publications favoring contested viewpoints were already getting university money, denying support to this one would constitute viewpoint discrimination, a violation of the Free Expression clause of the First Amendment. Critics of this decision pointed out that its logic implicitly declared the Establishment Clause, which singles out religion for special and negative attention, to be unconstitutional. Do you agree with this criticism, and if not, why not? To what extent (if any) are the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses in tension with one another?

3. In a famous debate half a century ago, the legal theorists H. L. A. Hart and Lon Fuller differed on the question of whether Nazi law in Germany was, in fact, law. Hart argued that morally iniquitous laws that have a valid form - laws that have emerged as the result of following legitimate procedures - are still laws, even though we might want to say that they are bad laws. Fuller contended that a legal system devoted to evil aims could not be called law because there is "a necessary relationship between substantive justice and procedural justice." With which of these theorists are you in agreement? Are law and morality finally one or can they be distinguished? Were the laws denying the vote to women in America real laws or spurious laws?

4. The right of judicial review - the right of courts to declare duly enacted laws unconstitutional - is not explicitly granted in the Constitution, but was proclaimed (some would say fabricated) by John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. One objection to judicial review has been that it is undemocratic because the decisions of democratically elected officials are overturned by jurists who have been appointed for life and who are, therefore, unaccountable to the judgments and desires of their fellow citizens. Do you think that judicial review can be defended and justified in the face of this objection? Is the practice of judicial review a violation of the separation of powers? Are judicial review and judicial restraint reconcilable or are they antithetical?

5. Sex offenders who have served their sentences are now required to register with the state, and in some jurisdictions there is talk of incarcerating such offenders beyond the term of their sentence if it is judged that they are likely to rape and molest again. Is the judicial system moving in the direction of creating a category of second-class citizens - citizens with fewer rights than the rest of us - on the basis of a perceived "tendency" to criminal activity? Is the fictional world of Philip K. Dick's story "Minority Report"- in which people are arrested for crimes they have not yet committed - becoming a reality in the United States? What constitutional concerns are raised by these developments?

Stanley Fish, a former chairman of the English department at Duke University, is a professor of law at Florida International University.

lyrics to "War"

I know this song due to owning Springsteen's Live 1975-85. I know he played it in Providence a few years ago with the E Street Band. Powerful stuff, especially when heard played live.

(written by Norman Whitfield & Barrett Strong)

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely (nothing), ah, ha, ha, ha

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely (nothing)
Say it again, y'all

War, huh, look out!
What is it good for?
Absolutely (nothing)
Listen to me

War I despise
'cause it means destruction of innocent lives
War means tears to thousands of mother's eyes
When their sons go out to fight and lose their lives

I said, war, huh, good God y'all
What is it good for
Absolutely (nothing)
geh, say it again

War (Huh)
Woh, woh, woh, woh
What is it good for?
Absolutely (nothing)
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothin' but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker

Ah, war is an enemy of all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die ? Ah....

War, good God, y'all
What is it good for ?
Absolutely (nothing)
Say it, say it, say it

War, ah ha yeah, huh,
What is it good for?
Absolutely (nothing)
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothin' but a heartbreaker
War, got one friend that's the undertaker

Ah, war has shattered many a young man's dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean

Life is much too short and precious
To spend fighting wars each day
War can't give life
It can only take it away

Ahh ,war, (Huh)
Good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again

(War, huh)
Woh, woh woh, Lord,
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

War, it ain't nothin' but a heartbreaker
War, friend only to the undertaker, oh

Peace, love and understanding, tell me
Is there no place for them today?
They say we must fight to keep our own freedom
But Lord knows there's gotta be a better way

Ahh ,war, (Huh)
Good God y'all
What is it good for?.......

Pat Robertson sticks his foot in his mouth again

You have to hand it to him. Pat sure knows how to cause trouble.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-15sharonrobertson,0,5240010.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines


Pat Robertson links Ariel Sharon's stroke to God's wrath

By SONJA BARISIC
Associated Press
Posted January 5 2006, 4:34 PM EST

NORFOLK, Va. -- Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine punishment for ``dividing God's land.''

``God considers this land to be his,'' Robertson said on his TV program ``The 700 Club.'' ``You read the Bible and he says `This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, `No, this is mine.'''

Sharon, who ordered Israel's withdrawal from Gaza last year, suffered a severe stroke on Wednesday.

In Robertson's broadcast from his Christian Broadcasting Network in Virginia Beach, the evangelist said he had personally prayed about a year ago with Sharon, whom he called ``a very tender-hearted man and a good friend.'' He said he was sad to see Sharon in this condition.

He also said, however, that in the Bible, the prophet Joel ``makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who 'divide my land.'''

Sharon ``was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU (European Union), the United Nations, or the United States of America,'' Robertson said.

In discussing what he said was God's insistence that Israel not be divided, Robertson also referred to the 1995 assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who had sought to achieve peace by giving land to the Palestinians. ``It was a terrible thing that happened, but nevertheless he was dead,'' he said.

People For the American Way Foundation, which monitors ``The 700 Club,'' criticized Robertson's remarks, calling them ``an implicit reference to recent steps the prime minister has taken to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.''

``Once again, Pat Robertson leaves us speechless with his insensitivity and arrogance,'' the group's president, Ralph G. Neas, said in a statement.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said a religious leader ``should not be making callous political points while a man is struggling for his life.''

``Pat Robertson has a political agenda for the entire world, and he seems to think God is ready to take out any world leader who stands in the way of that agenda,'' Lynn said in a statement.

Robertson spokeswoman Angell Watts said of critics who challenged his remarks, ``What they're basically saying is, `How dare Pat Robertson quote the Bible?'''

``This is what the word of God says,'' Watts said. ``This is nothing new to the Christian community.''

In August, Robertson suggested on ``The 700 Club'' that American agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has long been at odds with U.S. foreign policy. Robertson later apologized for his remarks, saying he ``spoke in frustration.''