I've been trying to post links to these columns for a while now, but ISP problems kept me off line.

These first two items are syndicated columns that ran in my local paper. So, you’ve likely seen them too. If not, don’t miss them:

n Max Boot on War-Time Presidents:

Sen. John Kerry is right to accuse President George W. Bush of "colossal failures of judgment" in Iraq. These range from decisions taken in the early days of the occupation, such as the premature disbanding of Iraq's army, to more recent missteps, such as allowing Fallujah to become a terrorist sanctuary.

Reading the depressing headlines, one is tempted to ask: Has any president in U.S. history ever botched a war or its aftermath so badly?

Actually, yes. Most wartime presidents have made catastrophic blunders, from James Madison's losing his capital to the British in 1814 to Harry Truman's getting embroiled with China in 1950. Errors tend to shrink in retrospect if committed in a winning cause (Korea); they get magnified in a losing one (Vietnam).

Boot even finds common ground between Dubya and Lincoln:

As the Union's fortunes fell, opponents tarred Lincoln with invective that might make even Michael Moore blush. Harper's magazine called him a "despot, liar, thief, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster, ignoramus." As late as the summer of 1864, Lincoln appeared likely to lose his bid for re-election. Only the fall of Atlanta on Sept. 2 saved his presidency.

n J.R. Labbe on Kerry, Bush, and the U.N.:

Under what the world now knows was a compromised U.N. oil-for-food program, France was sending boats and boat accessories as "relief items" in exchange for access to Iraq's oil reserves.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan personally OK'd $20 million in "humanitarian aid" for Odai Hussein, Saddam's son, to construct an Olympic sports complex. As the world also now knows, Odai's treatment of his nation's athletes was anything but humane.

Fast-forward to when Annan -- just days before Bush was scheduled to make his annual address to the U.N. -- called the U.S. and British actions in Iraq "an illegal war" that has violated "international law."

Well, it's crystal-clear which U.S. presidential candidate Annan prefers.

Too bad for Kerry that Annan and his European colleagues can't vote here.

n Oh, yeah… this one slipped by me last week…

The local paper, The Roanoke Times, must be hell bent on producing and printing the most inept editorials imaginable. For instance, their ramble about the fallout from memogate contained some real gems…

On the current state of the media:

Passive or careless reporting on major issues such as Iraq taints even once notoriously hard-nosed operations such as The New York Times, The Washington Post and CBS. Partisan Web logs - accountable to no one and often mixing disinformation with fact - and naked bias at Fox News and other outlets further diminish overall credibility.

You read that right. The editorial writer acknowledges memogate, and even manages to use the word “bias,” but he has the gaul to direct that word at an outfit OTHER than CBS News! OH, yeah, you betcha. The problem isn’t Dan Rather’s liberal bias! Goodness, Gracious, No! Why, Dan ISN’T BIASED AT ALL! He just made a wittle ol' mistake, by God! In fact, the real problem is those right wing nutcases over at Fox News and you shameful, shameful bloggers! Tsk, tsk, you bloggers. Tsk tsk!

Oh, and it gets better:

CBS and Dan Rather should pay a price for relying on bogus evidence. So should Fox, for its shamelessly reactionary news slant.

Do you get the feeling the writer was snickering when he came up with that one? It smacks of some sort of underhanded, childish quid-pro-quo: “OK, fine, if you bloggers are gonna bring CBS down, we’re going after Fox!”

Is it just me, or is that you you read it?

The Roanoke Times’ list of people who should pay a price continues:

And so should those owners and managers who deprive their staffs of the resources needed to chase down the complex stories that matter, and apply rigorous standards of journalism to those stories. So should those who clamp down on editorial independence and silence dissenting voices to advance business and political interests. So, too, the purveyors of nonsense, and worse, on the Internet.

That’s right, bloggers. If your posted opinions are in any way different from those held by the editorial staff at the Roanoke Times, then you are a purveyor of nonsense and you should pay a price for it. Maybe you should have your pajamas taken away and be forced to sleep in your undies.

But the kicker is the closing line:

America needs to shake the watchdogs awake.

Attention Roanoke Times: The real watchdogs are wide awake. If you don’t understand that, maybe Dan Rather could explain it to you while he's nursing his badly bitten hindquarters.