The latest bit of media hyperventilation surrounds the supposed discovery of an "Islamic school in the Sussex countryside, where it is alleged night-time training exercises were staged," according to Mike Sullivan, billed as the Sun's "crime editor." As usual, we are expected to switch off the higher reasoning centers of our brains and believe Islamic bad guys were "followed by undercover MI5 watchers as they went on camping trips at beauty spots around the South East of England." Of course, the word "watchers" should be replaced with "handlers."

So clueless are these putative terrorists, they "mingled with ordinary members of the public. They must have seemed like innocent nature-lovers enjoying the outdoor life and the best that England can offer. But in reality we believe they were planning mass murder," according to a security source. "During the surveillance, some watchers heard one leading suspect telling a group that as many people as possible should be killed." It is amazing this bit of stupidity-obvious Muslims discussing terrorism in public, loud enough to be overheard by "watchers," that is to say handlers-is allowed to pass without comment in the Sun.

Of course, all of this provides an all too convenient excuse to use "new legislation outlawing the training of terrorists" before they can put "their wicked plans into action," in other words the emergent police state in England is ironing out the wrinkles in its ministry of precrime, or rather thought crime, never mind such "wicked" thoughts are systematically implanted in hand-picked and stepfordized patsies, dupes, and half-wits. After arrest, these suspects are "quizzed on suspicion of soliciting murder, which carries a life term." As Amnesty International has revealed, suspects are "quizzed" under "harsh conditions of detention" that impact "the men's mental and physical well-being."

No doubt many Britons, sufficiently conditioned by the July 7, 2005, London "suicide bombings" by young men who did not fit the profile of suicide bombers, are onboard with the incrementally encroaching police state that declares its intent to "crack down on the process to recruit and brainwash terrorists-even before they plan an attack," that is to say short of the government pulling off a terror attack coinciding with astronomically improbable terror exercises.

Now we are told "Al-Qaeda recruiters could be deliberately targeting white and West Indian Muslim converts to be suicide bombers in an effort to evade detection by the security services," warns Life Style Extra. "Several non-Asian Muslim converts are known to have been involved in terrorism, including Jamaican-born Germaine Lindsay, one of the July 7 tube bombers, shoe bomber Richard Reid, and Zacarias Moussaoui, who studied Islam at Brixton Mosque and is the only person to be convicted over the 9/11 hijack plot," all apparently stepfordized mental deficients.

Crispin Black, a former Cabinet Office intelligence analyst, told LSE "that young men who have gone off the rails or suffer identity crises and search for religion are vulnerable to being manipulated by terrorists who use a twisted version of Islam to justify their campaign of hate." Naturally, Mr. Black and the media fail to mention the repeated instances of documented connections between these supposedly manipulative terrorists and British intelligence, for instance the connections between Abu Qatada, Haroon Rashid Aswat, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Hamza al-Masri, and MI5.

For many people, the passage of the Terrorism Act 2006, incorporating "measures to stop the encouragement of terrorism, preparation of terrorist acts and terrorist training" and in particular the "glorification" of terrorism, as noted by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, makes sense, considering the bogus aura of manufactured terrorism.

"This controversial measure is intended to allow the police to act against people who 'praise or celebrate' terrorism in a way that makes people think they should emulate such attacks.... Much of the act is not aimed at terrorists themselves, but instead at people who previously have existed on the fringes of extremist movements," that is to say people who have not committed any crime and in fact may be framed by the government for thoughtcrime or an allegation of thoughtcrime, for as George Orwell declared in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, "Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters."

Orwell's Thought Police used psychology and surveillance to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority. In Britain today, the ruling authority is not using thoughtcrime so much as a way to stamp out all deviant thought, but rather as a mechanism to create the specter of pervasive terrorism and thus erect, piece by piece, the scaffolding of a police state.

A similar process is at work in America, albeit not as advanced, for in America the bulwark of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights stand in the way. However, our unitary decider, the frat boy hailing from a crime family with an affinity for Nazis and fascism, who has declared a dictatorship would make things a whole lot easier, is well on the way to emulating the Brits, who have no such guarantees to downgrade.

"Creating Donald Rumsfeld as a bogeyman may make for good politics but would make for a very lousy strategy at this time," Snow said.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he hoped for a vote on Rumsfeld either Wednesday or Thursday as part of the debate over a defense appropriations bill. But Senate Republicans could use procedural measures to block a no-confidence resolution on Rumsfeld.

Senate Majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee dismissed the resolution as "political gamesmanship."

"If they want to inject a purely partisan political resolution, I will address it. Until they do so, I'm not going to sit here and hypothesize how I will have to deal with it," Frist told reporters.

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House of Representatives, said it was uncertain when or how Democrats would bring up the measure in the House, which has rules that give the Republican majority party more power to block votes.

Democrats stepped up their criticism of Rumsfeld after his speech last week assailing critics of U.S. war policies.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said, "We're not going to get involved in politics here at the Defense Department," and repeated White House characterizations of Democrats' criticism as "baseless partisan attacks."

'HISTORY'S LESSONS'

In a speech to military veterans last week in Salt Lake City blasting critics of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld said "some seem not to have learned history's lessons."

He recounted that some politicians wanted to appease Hitler's Germany before World War Two, and asked, "Can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?"

Opinion polls show eroding U.S. public support for the 3-1/2-year-old Iraq war.

Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war has been strongly criticized by Democrats, many of whom have demanded his resignation, as well as by a few Republicans.

Reid, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California and 10 other senior congressional Democrats wrote a letter to Bush on Monday demanding a new direction in Iraq, including a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops starting before the end of 2006.

The letter faulted Rumsfeld for sending too few troops to Iraq and then failing to equip them adequately, failing to plan for the occupation of Iraq after President Saddam Hussein's ouster, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and the disbanding of Iraq's military in 2003.

Rumsfeld on Tuesday underwent elective surgery to repair a shoulder injury. The surgery lasted less than two hours to fix a torn rotator cuff, a relatively common sports injury, said Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff.

"The attendant actually recognized out loud that he wasn't a Muslim and that she was sorry for the situation but they had to ask him to leave," Faguy said.

The man, who spoke neither English nor French, was escorted off the airplane.

Air Canada Jazz termed the situation "delicate," but says it received more than one complaint about the man's behaviour.

The crew had to act in the interest of the majority of passengers, said Jazz spokeswoman Manon Stewart.

"The passenger did not speak English or French, so we really had no choice but to return to the gate to secure a translator," she said.

The airline is not saying if the man was told he was not allowed to pray, but a spokesperson said the man was back on board the next flight to New York.

Jewish leaders in Montreal criticized the move as insensitive, saying the flight attendants should have explained to the other passengers that the man was simply praying and doing no harm.

Hasidic Rabbi Ronny Fine said he often prays on airplanes, but typically only gets curious stares.

"If it's something that you're praying in your own seat and not taking over the whole plane, I don't think it should be a problem," said Fine.

The Jewish group B'nai Brith Canada has offered to help give Air Canada crews sensitivity training.

A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said the senator held "a direct and honest conversation" with Bolton on Tuesday and would support him. A spokesman for Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island earlier on Tuesday said the senator had not reached a decision.

Committee Republicans will aim to stick together against Democrats' opposition to Bolton, who has served as U.N. envoy for the last year after President George W. Bush bypassed the Senate and appointed him during a congressional recess.

The appointment expires in January when this Congress ends, and the White House wants him confirmed by the Senate to keep him for the rest of Bush's term, which ends in January 2009.

About 60 retired diplomats who served in Republican and Democratic administrations signed letters to Foreign Relations Committee members calling Bolton unfit to keep the job and urging his rejection.

The former diplomats, who also opposed Bolton's nomination last year, said in their letter that Bolton's conduct "has confirmed our misgivings about his probable ineffectiveness and his tendency to alienate others."

They said Bolton's "hard core, go-it-alone posture" has hurt the United States in the world body, and said "with so much at stake, our country cannot afford to permit John Bolton to continue his destructive course during the next two years."

But Republicans, citing the need for a strong hand at the United Nations during the Middle East crisis, have pushed for Bolton's quick confirmation.

Bush could reappoint him during an upcoming congressional recess, but Bolton could not receive a salary and he would be viewed as being in a weakened position.

Democrats said they would decide after the committee vote on whether to try to block a Senate vote on Bolton's nomination, as they did last year.

They contend Bolton bullied intelligence analysts to conform to his hawkish views in his last job as top U.S. arms control negotiator and his harsh criticisms of the United Nations made him unsuitable for the job.

But Bolton was getting help from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful lobbying organization that has publicly praised him as a "strong advocate for the U.S. on issues that matter to the pro-Israel community."

"We have no intention of commenting on any speculation of the timetable," a spokeswoman from 10 Downing said in response to the article.

Speculation over Blair's departure date has intensified in recent days.

Environment Minister David Milliband and Social Exclusion Minister Hilary Armstrong both publicly stated Tuesday that Blair would probably leave within a year.

Blair announced in late 2004 that he would not seek a fourth term. As his popularity has dropped in the polls this year, many within the party have grown impatient with his reluctance to set a specific timetable.

While the Sun was predicting when Blair might step down, the Guardian reported this week on a flurry of leaked Labour memos being exchanged, one which called on him to resign immediately, and a subsequent memo chastising those spearheading that particular campaign.

The Guardian was pointed in its editorial Wednesday.

"A cascade of developments yesterday subverted Mr. Blair's already weakened position still further," the editorial stated. "They are evidence that the tide has turned. Mr. Blair cannot long continue as prime minister without saying something much more explicit and much more politically realistic and modest about his plans than he has done so far."

For their part, the Daily Mirror obtained what it says was an internal communique where Blair's advisers declared: "He needs to go with the crowds wanting more. He should be the star who won't even play that last encore."

Blair told the Times in an interview last week that he wouldn't commit to a date in time for the party's annual conference later this month, but that he would give ample time for the next Labour leader to prepare for elections, predicted for 2009.

"I think I have said enough for anyone reasonable to know I will do my best for the country and the party to make sure that when I do depart it is done in a stable and sensible and orderly way, but in the meantime, to get on with the job of prime minister," Blair said.

He also expressed annoyance at the handicapping of when his tenure would end.

"I'm not the one who keeps raising this issue," he said. "I think if it is speculation that people are worried about, there is a simple answer: stop speculating."

If the Sun report proves correct, Blair would leave after three terms and nine years, two months as prime minister. In the last century, only Margaret Thatcher's tenure has been longer.