MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE — How MI-5 got behind the curve in addressing Islamist terror.

HILLARY CLINTON AND ROBERT BYRD want Congress to revoke the Iraq war authorization. Hmm. I’m pretty sure this is veto-able, like any other legislation, meaning that it’ s more about protecting her left flank from Obama than about actually doing anything.

On the other hand, if it succeeds it will certainly tie her and the Democratic Party to what comes next. Which is another reason I’m pretty sure it’s a stunt. Her internal polls must show Obama surging.

EARLIER I LINKED a piece in The Hill charging Dianne Feinstein with conflicts of interest. This post by Bill Allison at the Sunlight Foundation blog says that at most the piece makes out an appearance of conflict, not an actual conflict.

UPDATE: Matthew Hoy responds: “I’m still troubled (to say the least) that no major newspaper has done any in-depth reporting on the issue. There is still, at the very least, an appearance of a conflict of interest in Feinstein’s actions. If the delay (if not outright disinterest in the story) that we are seeing from the mainstream media was because reporters were diligently checking all the facts, dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s, before getting something into print or on the air I would applaud. However, this is not how things usually work.”

And John Torbett writes: “For fairness sake I think you should note that the Sunlight Foundation is
operated by people who are politically left of center.” True enough, but I thought everyone knew that.

REPORTEDLY, BUSH WILL VETO THE EXPANDED HATE-CRIMES LAW: Dale Carpenter has a roundup and observes: “The administration’s given reasons are that the law is unnecessary, an intrusion on federalism, and constitutionally questionable as an exercise of federal power. I expressed similar reservations in a post here about the bill two months ago. To its credit, the administration is avoiding the common and I think mistaken complaint that the bill would punish speech and thought. Anti-gay organizations, like Concerned Women for America, will certainly be happy about this. But their glee is insufficient reason to support the bill.”

I’VE BEEN BUSY WITH FAMILY STUFF, but N.Z. Bear has been liveblogging the Republican candidates’ debate.

So are Capt. Ed, and crew, at Heading Right. “Paul . . . Sounded good on isolationism. But he just looks like crud on TV.”

And here’s a live debate thread at the Power Line forum. Plus, Karol Sheinin at Alarming News. “I can’t help but feel that people are going to be beyond sick of all these candidates by the time election-time actually comes around. I’m already sort of sick of them. ” But she thinks one of them is really good-looking!

And from a somewhat different perspective, more liveblogging from Dave Weigel. “Huckabee says we are a great nation because ‘We are a culture of life.’ By that reasoning, if we got into a shooting war with the Vatican, would we lose?”

Plus, from her very own perspective, Ann Althouse. “Halfway into this, I’d say the person making the most headway is Romney.”

Stephen Green, meanwhile, is engaging in that “drunkblogging” that he does so well: “Imagine you’re watching Hardball, only Matthews has ten guests instead of one or two. That’s what tonight’s debate has already devolved into. Now imagine that instead of candidates, we had ten knife-wielding spider monkeys jacked up on Mini Thins. That’s where I hope this thing is going.”

More at The Corner. “If you’re mad as hell and won’t take it anymore, McCain is your guy tonight. . . . Thompson is winning—Fred Thompson.”

UPDATE: More from Spacetropic: “None of these guys is drawing a contrast to the Democrats. This seems like a huge mistake. What they are saying about these issues would be so much more persuasive if they explained the Left’s take on the same (for example security, religion, abortion).”

And GraniteGrok is on the case: “FAIRTAX mentioned!!!! I wish I knew who talked about it. Guess I’ll find out from the Neal Boortz site in the morning.”

Bob Owens offers his take in ten words.

Oh, and I should note that Stephen Green has an open comment thread.

Joshua Claybourn counts hands on who believes in evolution.

Jonah Goldberg: “I hope Democrats, feminists and others are taking note that Chris Matthews’ question about whether it would be good if Bill Clinton was back in the White House basically makes Hillary — the wife and actual candidate — the bit player.”

Here’s a wrap-up from Jim Geraghty.

And reader C.J. Burch emails: “Couple more of these and FRED!!! wins the nomination without having to campaign. MSNBC did itself no favors either.”

No love for Keith Olbermann.

John Hawkins was pleasantly surprised: “Overall, I thought it was much more substance filled and interesting debate than the one the Democrats had last week. Also, I have to give MSNBC credit — they did a good job overall and if anything, they may have been too soft on the candidates.”

Roger Simon: “The big winner of the first Republican presidential debate was the man who wasn’t there: Fred Thompson. Although I admire Giuliani and agree with him on most issues, the presidential look and feel of the absent Fred loomed over this boring event with only Ron Paul for comic relief.”

Eric Erickson: “John McCain won. Let’s not dance around this.”

Further thoughts here: “Of the three front runners, Romney was by far the best, as much as it pains me to say it. Rudy was bland. McCain looked old. Brownback and Tancredo both came across as very strong. . . . Ron Paul was really eccentric. As much as I admire the man’s many votes against bigger government, he came across as pretty nuts. Tommy Thompson was really dull. Jim Gilmore was ok, but nothing special. Duncan Hunter was well-spoken, but did little to distinguish himself. Mike Huckabee was ok, but like Hunter he seemed to blend into the crowd.”

Andrew Sullivan wasn’t very impressed with anybody.

Mark Coffey: “The winner, I guess, is McCain by default, but we’re going to have to do much, much better than this at articulating a vision that will get us elected in 2008. Dogmatic references to a pro-life culture and endless evocations of Ronald Reagan are not going to get the job done in the current climate.”

Dean Barnett posts a wrapup.

Mark Daniels comments: “I was struck by virtually the entire field’s willingness to disagree with some aspects of the current administration’s policies. That no doubt has something to do with the President’s current low-approval ratings. But I also think that these candidates were signaling their comfort with being their own persons.”

STILL MORE: SurveyUSA has an Insta-Poll of California watchers out. “Who Won CA Republican Presidential Debate? Former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani convincingly won tonight’s California debate among Republican candidates for President of the United States, according to a SurveyUSA poll of 317 state of California debate watchers. Giuliani was picked as the winner by 30% of those in CA who watched. Former MA Governor Mitt Romney, who was picked as the winner by 12%, and AZ Senator John McCain, who was picked as the winner by 11%, tied for 2nd place, far back from Giuliani. All other candidates were in single digits. . . . 51% of debate viewers were white. 28% of debate viewers were Hispanic. 15% of debate viewers were Asian. 45% of debate viewers were Republican. 30% of debate viewers were Democrats. 22% of debate viewers were Independent. 43% of debate viewers were Pro-Life. 53% of debate viewers were Pro-Choice.”

Bad marks for Jim Vandehei of The Politico for his “What Do You Dislike Most About America?” question.

And some post-debate analysis from Ryan Sager, who comments: “I hate these 10-candidate debates.” Plus this:

The alternate “winner” of tonight’s debate, of course, was Fred Thompson. By not showing up, he managed to stay out of the muck and to preserve his status as magical “savior” candidate for another night. I’m not sure that’s good for the nomination process, but it’s good for Mr. Thompson.

I think that’s right. But I think that starting so soon isn’t good for the nomination process, either.

FINALLY: Some reactions to the debate blogged by Bill Frist.

HOME OF THE WHOPPER.

HERE’S MORE on the Obama MySpace scandal. I still think it’s small potatoes, but it was an unforced error.

HARRY REID TAKES A JAB AT JOHN EDWARDS. If fists start flying, though, I’m betting on Edwards.

WALLY SCHIRRA HAS DIED at the age of 84.

ED FELTEN: “When the great mathematician Leopold Kronecker wrote his famous dictum, ‘God created the integers; all else is the work of man,’ he meant that the basic structure of mathematics is part of the design of the universe. What God created, AACS LA now wants to take away.”

IT’S DIVERSITY THURSDAY at Best of the Web.

BACK TO THE FUTURE: A look at the current direction in Latin American politics.

GATEWAY PUNDIT JIM HOFT is liveblogging “world press freedom day” at the U.N.

SO CRAZY IT JUST MIGHT WORK: InstaPunk unveils a new strategy in the war against Islamic terror.

FRED THOMPSON on Fidel.

JONAH GOLDBERG WENT TO OXFORD, where the communist chickened out rather than confront him. “They replaced the Communist with a Canadian which, even I had to concede, was a very poor substitute for a Communist.” Well, yeah.

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: My hopes that the Democrats would be better on pork seem doomed to less-than-complete fulfillment:

Finance Committee chief Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is unlikely to follow the example of three other chairmen who have imposed voluntary earmark-disclosure rules on their members’ requests.

According to a Baucus aide, Baucus does not anticipate sending an earmark letter because the Finance Committee’s informal rule against so-called “rifle-shot” tax benefits makes the panel a special case. . . .

And if last year’s lobbying measure — which never made it to conference — offers any preview of this year’s talks, official tax-earmark rules may be slow in coming. Ellis said the uncertain future of earmark transparency calls for not just a letter from Baucus, but support from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

“Should Baucus do it? Yes. Should Reid move forward with a Senate rules change? Yes,” Ellis said. “Should Speaker Pelosi and the House get off the dime and pass [a lobbying bill]? Priceless.”

Read the whole thing. It’s not all bad, but it certainly gives the impression of hair-splitting and foot-dragging rather than enthusiasm for real reform. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised, though.

TRANS-FAT LAWSUIT DISMISSED:

A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by a doctor who accused KFC of not telling customers that it used trans fats to fry its chicken.

In an occasionally sarcastic opinion, U.S. District Judge James Robertson said Dr. Arthur Hoyte could not show that he was harmed by KFC’s use of the artery-clogging fats.

That was enough to doom the lawsuit, but Robertson also noted other flaws in the case.

“While it might be appropriate for this court to find, as a matter of law, that the consumption of fat — including trans fat — is indeed within the reasonable expectations of the consumers of fried chicken and french fries prepared in fast food kitchens, it is not necessary for me to reach that question,” Robertson wrote.

And in response to Hoyte’s claim that customers have a growing understanding of the dangers of trans fats, Robertson wrote: “If consumers are increasingly aware of trans fat, where do they expect to find it if not in fast food restaurants?”

The sarcasm is merited. Costs and sanctions, would have been, too . . . .

IS THE WORLD BANK “NAKEDLY ANTI-GAY?” Prof. Kenneth Anderson looks at the latest twist.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! “Sen. Webb (D-VA) on the president’s veto: ‘We won this war four years ago. The question is when we end the occupation.'”

UPDATE: Say, maybe we have the outline of a deal here — Bush agrees to withdraw troops, if Democrats agree to say loudly and publicly that we won the war.

Would Democrats go for that? I’m guessing not, as they’ve got too much invested in selling the war as a Bush defeat and I don’t think they’d be willing to give that up just to bring the troops home. And I don’t think Bush would go for it either, since I think he actually values what the troops are doing there now and doesn’t think it’s time to bring them home yet. But some people see this as an evolution in rhetoric.

A REVIEW OF Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center.

DAVID ALL AND JEROME ARMSTRONG UNVEIL Dome Nation.

DEMOCRATS BACK DOWN on Iraq timetable.

UPDATE: Now that the Kabuki is over, Howard Kurtz notes, both sides have to decide what to do.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Now the Democrats are denying this report and vowing No Surrender! Er, to Bush. But now they’ve opened a second front against the Washington Post.

IN THE MAIL: A new edition of Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative, with a new introduction by George Will and, somewhat weirdly, an afterword by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. In this moment of Republican doubt and disarray, I suspect it will find a lot of readers.

And, in what may be an interesting metaphor for Republicans, the book that Amazon recommends along with it is Defiant Gardens, which actually looks kind of cool.

HERE’S SOME POTENTIAL GOOD NEWS on the longevity front:

Studies have shown that severe calorie restriction markedly extends lifespan in mice and many other species – but the reasons for this remained elusive.

But now US research on nematode worms, published in Nature, has uncovered a gene linked to this unusual effect.

In the future, the find could lead to drugs that mimic the consequences of calorie restriction but negate the need for severe fasting regimes.

These metabolic treatments aren’t the Holy Grail of life-extension research — actually repairing or reversing the damage involved in aging is the real goal — but they could be very useful, and may come first. Plus, any success will spur further research, and research money.