So NBC's chief war correspondent Richard Engel claims that if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq, things would still be bad, but not as bad as before. His reasoning: Saddam Hussein would still be in power, but, "he was probably getting more moderate."

So, what does he mean by "moderate?"

I suppose, maybe, "only gassing half as many Kurds?"

Perhaps he was going to instruct his sons to only rape women on "every other weekend."

Or maybe, to help the environment, he'll only electrocute citizens using recycled car batteries.

Anypoop - Engel's wrong. He makes the point that Saddam would be more accommodating, but you can't be more accommodating than when you're dead. I think even Saddam would agree, if he were alive. But he's dead, so he can't.

In that sense, I guess he's not that accommodating (which does poke a hole in my theory).

More important, Engel should remember that one of the real benefits of that war is reminding dictators and homicidal maniacs that they are not impervious. The U.S. can and will stand up against evil – and Engel knows that many evil bastards were against the war for precisely that reason. It scared them.

Finally, Engel bases everything on a basic premise: all war is bad, even wars we win.

But we all know war sucks. We hate it when people die. And a lot of people had problems with the Iraq War, myself included. But the fact is, we won, and Saddam -who Engel calls a very bad man – is gone. That is a major accomplishment, and it strikes me as wrong not to give our armed forces massive kudos for that tremendous achievement.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist Islamophobic homophobe.

Gregalogue to come.

Also, I'll be on O'Reilly, tonight!

So here are some poll numbers that should scare the low-waisted chaps off Democrats. By a 50-42 margin, Ohio voters say they'd rather have George W. Bush as President right now than Barack Obama. Also, among voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional preferences, Republicans lead by 51% to 41%. That lead is the largest since Gallup started tracking the stuff in the early 1500's!

Now, there's a reason Bush looks good, but it has less to do with the man, than the media. Think about it: "back then," you didn't have reporters calling you a dumb racist every time you ragged on the President! What makes Obama unpopular? For one: you can't disagree with him, without being called something bad.

Check out Chris Matthews, the tingling mess who cannot fathom why no one is happy with Mr. Wonderful.

<http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/01/chris-matthews-how-can-people-not-like-a-president-whos-almost-pluperfect/>

Okay..where to start...

First, people can admire Obama and still disagree with his policies. I think he's a decent guy, and the best liberal president I've seen. But I also can't stand him because he is the best liberal president I've seen. Matthews can't see that it's about ideology, not race. Maybe he's the bigot!

Look, concerning his unpopularity, Obama is the least surprised of all. He planned to lose friends from the start. What makes him smarter than Matthews: he knew America would hate his agenda.

But the biggest fallacy in Chris's whine: that it's worse to make money than to community organize. How fun is it that while Matthews denigrates capitalists - he makes wads of cash denigrating capitalists!

Fact is, financial motives help way more people than community work - which is often just political resume building anyway. Bill Gates has done way more for the poor than Obama will ever do - and he did it by pursuing his interests, not theirs.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe who should give me a back rub, but won't.

So today I got a press release from something called Faith in Public Life. It begins:

As hateful rhetoric and fear-mongering about the Park51 Islamic Center in lower Manhattan creates a growing climate of hate and violence toward American Muslims, prominent religious leaders and national security experts will join together ... to denounce growing Islamophobia and to urge the development of the New York community center-as a means of both protecting our nation and of upholding our American values of freedom, resilience, tolerance, and cooperation.

At this point, I have to ask myself: am I hate monger? Is my mom a fear monger? Does 70 percent of America provide a combination of hate and fear mongering?

I mean - when you're talking about people who have problems with the mosque - those are the people, you're talking about.

So again I ask the folks who smugly dismiss mosque opponents: Do you believe that every single person against the mosque is a bigot?

Because that's a massive number, and it includes me, my mom, many friends (from both sides of the political spectrum), also blacks, whites, Hispanics, Jews...even Muslims.

(But oddly, no Griffin lovers)

So - again, are they all hateful bigots?

Or...do you think some might have a legitimate reason for their opinion?

You know it's true. In fact, you KNOW there's a legit reason for being pissed - but you ignore it.

And I want to know why - cuz maybe you can convince me I'm wrong.

See, we all agree with the right to pray wherever. If you want to build the mosque, fine. But I can still say it's a jerky thing to do. Like I said, annoying someone is legal. But it still makes you annoying.

But if your response is, "Greg, you just don't like Muslims," then screw you. Instead of clinging to this bigotry meme in order to skirt debate, just meet me on a field of common sense - and who knows, you might win.

And if you don't, you're a racist, homophobic islamophobic arachnophobe.

So last night I coined a new disorder, called Islamophobia-phobia, or fear of being labeled Islamophobic.

As you already know, Islamophobia is defined as a fear of Muslims. So Islamophobia-phobia is a real fear of a perceived fear.

So, who are the culprits behind the disease?

Jackasses in the media.

To quote a perceptive tweet by a dude whose handle is "politics of fear:"

"How can the media say were Islamophobic, when we all died from avian/swine flu?"

That's it, nutshell-wise.

The fact is, there is no group more quick to judge, more prone to exaggeration or sensationalism than the media. They are the haymakers of hysteria. The litany of scares propagated by the media is so long, that if I were to list them, you would fall asleep, dropping your bong shaped like the head of Robert Bork.

And, as always: anything the press says will decimate us, won't. Ever.

So screw them when they accuse us of hysteria. They've done this before with McCarthyism, jingoism, and tomboyism (a totally legitimate fear of tomboys).

Here's why they do it: when hacks realize that a story has sped right past them - they must cover their asses. So rather than play catch up, they turn on you. Hence, by missing the mosque story, they make the story about opponents of the mosque.

And so, like ABC, you go undercover to a mosque protest - maybe to scrounge up evidence that Islamofear is sweeping the nation.

When, really, the only thing sweeping the nation these days are sweepers. Without them, our floors would be covered with dust, crumbs, chunky pieces of fractured bone and clumps of scalp.

But maybe that's just my house.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist islamophobic homophobe.

So roughly eight years ago, as President Bush was getting ready to golf, reporters peppered him with questions about suicide bombings in Israel. Holding his driver, the President said, "There are a few killers who want to stop the peace process... and we must not let them. I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers."

Then he said, without missing a beat: "Thank you. Now watch this drive."

What an idiot, right?

Eh. Not so much, I think.

See, this memory springs to mind (thanks to a Fox News producer), after hearing about our current President's outing at Nancy's, a waterfront restaurant in Oaks Bluff, Massachusetts.

As President Obama walked toward the entrance, a few reporters tried to ask him about Iraq. After ignoring them for a bit, he turned and said, "We're buying shrimp guys... C'mon."

And there you have it: one president who can play golf and talk terror - and one who needs his shrimp.

Look I get the point: it's a vacation. And shrimp is delicious.

But it can't be that hard to answer a simple question - especially one that's kinda important. I mean, if that dim bulb George Bush could do it, I think Obama could too.

Granted, some say buying shrimp is harder than lining up a decent drive. Shrimp are small, slippery and they have those annoying shells on their tails. Frankly, I find them disgusting, and if I had my way, I'd imprison all of them in tiny shrimp jails.

You could say I am shrimpaphobic. And you'd be right.

Anyway, as Obama delicately sucks the meat out of a tiny crustacean, Vlad Putin harpoons a whale with a cross bow.

I know that says something...about something.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe who stole my underpants.

So, since I wrote that last gregalogue, a New York cabbie was stabbed by a drunken man, who first asked the driver if he was Muslim.

So, how long before someone takes this horrible crime and links it to the mosque? Hooray for Rachel Sklar, at Mediaite, who writes:

Okay so: Anyone else sadly not surprised at a Muslim hate crime in New York City these days? The anger that flared up at the anti-Mosque protest on Sunday sure looked like it could have led to something scary.

Okay.

Look: the criminal was super drunk and deranged. Unless you have proof that everyone against the mosque is also super drunk and deranged - then you're out of luck. And if this crime really reflected opinions of people with issues over the mosque, where is the outpouring of support for the creepy stabber?

So far, it's being reported that the a-hole in question may have actually worked with a group (Intersections International) that strongly supports the mosque. Also: he wears wire-rimmed glasses just like Richard Dreyfuss.

But look, since 9/11, the media has been salivating in anticipation over "backlash crimes." And by linking isolated, drunken violence to a contentious issue, they help stifle opinions counter to their own.

But it must drive them crazy, that, in a country of 300 million people, we don't act the way they would like us to.

Well done America. Poo on you, media.

And hope you get well, Mr. Cabbie.

See you tonight, everyone else.

So A-P writer Allen Breed begins his recent mosque piece by defining the word, "tolerance." It's a traditional rhetorical device, one learned back in sixth grade while plagiarizing the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

His piece focuses on religion, of course, - but not Islam, Christianity or even my favorite, "the universal life force of the Grand Unicorn."

His all powerful religion? Tolerance.

Of course, for him, tolerance can only play one way. As Yanks we must kneel before the alter of acceptance, while everyone else uses us as a footrest.

I mean, I doubt Breed would MENTION tolerance to the mosque developers. Instead, true to the predictable mind grazing on hysterical cliches, he harkens back to the witch trials - the most overused example of intolerance ever - and one that probably deserved it. I mean, witches suck.

Breed then quotes a reverend who says this is all due to a "dominant religious lens factor" - meaning, i guess, when one group thinks their religion is better than others.

He knows this, since he's a wiccan minister, a practitioner of a cult populated by veiny spinsters with cats. I guess the writer wouldn't find an imam tolerant enough to grant him an interview.

Or maybe he didn't look.

After all, it would be a sign of intolerance to question the intolerant, especially when their intolerance is protected by tolerance!

Instead, focus on us. We're nice people. We won't kill you.

But look, intolerance is not the issue. Think about your pal who can have any girl he wants, but chooses to go after the girl dating you. There, tolerance, doesn't enter the equation. Being a jerk, does.

And that's what this is all about. Tolerance now serves as a condom for jerks seeking protection from their own jerkiness.

I'd use it myself, but they don't make one in my size.

And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe who owes me thirty bucks.

Gregalogue to come!