GHOST OF WMDs YET TO COME. Like we didn't know, seeing as we've been hearing it from every bobblehead on television for weeks:

Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president.

Still, I have to ask: how does that work? If citizens gather en masse outside the Republican Convention to express disapproval, how is that good for Republicans? (I am consciously dismissing the whole "disruption" angle, largely out of respect for the NYPD's crowd-control skills, and partly because anyone with a gram of sense will know that any photogenic unpleasantness that occurs will probably be an inside job.)

More interesting is this soundbyte from Dr. Mabuse:

"This speech has to lay out a forward-looking, positive prospective agenda," said Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's senior political adviser. "It has to show -- and to defend in a way the American people want to hear -- his policies on the war on terror."

I'm getting a premonition: Iraq's over (I mean in the Entertainment Tonight sense, not the mayhem and the ever-increasing casualties), terror alerts are losing their mojo -- could this be the moment for Bush's big Iran speech? Stay tuned for the September Surprise!