"The Psalm-singing Bush people want the thrill of the first-day invasion in Iraq without ever having to care about the catastrophe in New York that is sure to follow. If not today, tomorrow. If not tomorrow, then anytime they get here. They do not need some huge device. A body bomb on Fifth Avenue is all they need. That body bomb and all the others on all the streets after it, and the disease tossed into the subways... Washington is sure that it can do anything it wants in the Middle East because the only place that will be hurt over here is New York and New York does not count."

Talk about psycho. Of course Breslin is correct that the main target in the United States for rogue nations and its hired hands is New York City, and that’s because of the population density and the potentially fatal damage it would wreak on the world economy. But Breslin’s blind hatred for Bush and his suspicion and disgust for the remaining 49 states in the country prevent him from seeing beyond his own block.

The man who was once a Manhattan institution, with his table at Elaine’s, legendary drinking binges, the ’69 goof of running for City Council president with fellow cut-up Norman Mailer as the mayoral candidate, and Son of Sam prominence, now lives in the past, as washed-up journalists are wont to do. But Newsday’s editors ought to recognize Breslin’s paranoia and affix a note at the beginning of each column, admitting, "We only print Breslin because he’s still somewhat of a trophy writer, a commodity we’re short on, but don’t take his words at face value. We don’t."

Breslin claims that President Bush and his administration don’t care if New York blows up because the state didn’t vote for him in 2000 and probably won’t in 2004. And people thought Donald Manes was nuts.

Why does Breslin think that Bush is pursuing Saddam Hussein with the singlemindedness that he is? It’s fools like Al Gore, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy and Tom Daschle the columnist ought to excoriate. They’re the blind partisans, far more interested in the midterm elections or their own presidential aspirations to understand that New York could be the scene of a massive disaster literally any moment now. And every day that slips by without dismantling the Iraqi regime is another roll of the dice for residents here. Bush is as political a president as they come, but Breslin’s absurd statement that "New York does not count" to the current administration is just silly.

Given his well-founded concern for the city’s safety, why doesn’t Breslin direct his bile at local pols like Charlie Rangel, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerrold Nadler, Hillary Clinton and George Pataki, all of whom haven’t lifted a finger to stave off another massacre? Breslin might ask these elected officials why there isn’t a visible National Guard presence in New York City. He could also suggest that Bush move 1000 of the U.S. soldiers in Germany–spending American currency in an ungrateful country–to targets like the Lincoln Tunnel, Grand Central Station, the Brooklyn Bridge and Yankee Stadium.

But that would require the paperback writer to support the administration’s war against terrorism, and Breslin can’t get it up for such a stand. Because Bush is from Texas, and that’s a "low I.Q." state.

Breslin continues: "I still remember standing in the crowd on Broadway for the parade celebrating the great victory over Iraq in 1991. I remember thinking, ‘They’ll do something back to us.’ That was hardly an original thought. What was it, two years later, just a couple of blocks over, on West Street, a huge bomb went off in the garage under the World Trade Center."

The ’93 attack, because of bumbling terrorists, wasn’t nearly as calamitous as planned, although that’s small comfort to the victims’ families. Breslin doesn’t mention that Bill Clinton didn’t even visit the WTC site, and ignored the obvious conclusion that this wasn’t a random event.

Breslin muddles on, fast-tracking to 2001: "Of course they would try again. This group was different. They were willing to die, and die they did to blow up the trade center. Government agents and agencies costing billions of dollars said they didn’t know it was coming. Why, then, is Bush nervous about talking about it, and seeks war in Iraq to distract? Did somebody tell him something and he, too, discounted it because it was New York, and, jeez, he didn’t get a vote out of New York."

Is Breslin angling for the veep slot on Cynthia McKinney’s purported Green Party presidential campaign in 2004?

Anyone who believes that Saddam Hussein–who pays $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers–had no communication with bin Laden and Al Qaeda is drinking from a bad bottle of rye. The lack of a "smoking gun" that connects Iraq and Sept. 11 is the thread that peaceniks hang onto, citing that the CIA and FBI have no evidence to corroborate what Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell and Cheney know to be true. Why they’re putting any credence in these U.S. intelligence agencies, which were completely in the dark last year, is beyond me. One of Bush’s key mistakes–and he’s made several–in prosecuting this war on terrorism was the failure to immediately dismantle the FBI and CIA, and replace the politically correct infrastructure with the nasty, down-and-dirty agents who could actually infiltrate the enemy’s camp.

Pete Hamill, one of Breslin’s cohorts from The Old Days, who now writes occasionally for the Daily News, is less hyperbolic than his friend, but no less dense about the danger that Hussein represents to the United States. In the space of three weeks, Hamill wrote two columns that are so contradictory it makes you wonder not about his sanity but rather his benign descent into sappy nostalgia.

On Sept. 12, Hamill wrote a moving column about the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, that was notable for its sincerity about New York’s loss that day compared to the mawkish, ratings-driven coverage on television. He wrote about the eerie wind that enveloped the city that day, a phenomenon that made even the most cynical observer think it wasn’t just a coincidence. It was, as Hamill said, a "cleansing" wind, so different than the horrific gusts of smoke, bits of paper, the odor of death and fear and grime that turned downtown into a war zone just over a year ago. The essay wasn’t the least bit trite because it was true.

Hamill: "And then the wind seemed to become an essential part of this day of remembrance. It was as if it were lifting all that anguish out of the pit, out of the earth, out of the hearts of all mourners and dispersing it into the sparkling air.

"A cleansing wind. A liberating wind. Once more at this site, this open New York wound, we saw a cloud of dust, this time coming from nature and not from the murderous hearts of addled men. The wind blew and the dust rose above us all, now moving north, toward Tribeca and SoHo and the Village, toward Chelsea and Times Square, toward all those places on our granite island where wolves howled in forests when men and women first came to live in Cortlandt St."

Last week, however, Hamill joined the containment-of-Iraq crowd, and took a poll of Greenwich Village residents about their opinions on overthrowing Hussein. This is the liberal media’s new gambit in its effort to rally Democrats in Congress to oppose President Bush’s war plans. Talk to the "real people," who are convenient only when they can be exploited to make the Gore-Clinton-Kennedy case for treating Hussein as if he were a rational dictator who just happens to hate Americans and Jews.

The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman has gone to the heartland as well, and reports that polls showing support for military action are wrong. He wrote on Sept. 18: "Recently, I’ve had the chance to travel around the country and do some call-in radio shows, during which the question of Iraq has come up often. And here’s what I can report from a totally unscientific sample: Don’t believe the polls that a majority of Americans favor a military strike against Iraq. It’s just not true."

It’s true that Friedman knows from bogus polls: the Times is notorious not only for skewing results to buttress its own editorial views, but also misrepresenting the raw data in news articles describing the opinion of, say, Bush’s job performance. Still, it’s hard to believe that Friedman’s radio tour wasn’t comprised mostly of NPR or ideologically similar stations.

The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, another Beltway aristocrat, had done the same, slumming in Indiana for the crusade, and probably sacrificing a really swell DC townhouse party with Al Hunt, Maureen Dowd and James Carville. Last Friday, Dionne made the accusation that Bush, who was criticized all summer for his supposed silence about Iraq, is now talking (and campaigning) almost exclusively about Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. "This is intimidation, pure and simple," Dionne wrote. "Are we at the point where differing with the president means opposing the interests of the nation? The administration’s friends are prepared to shut down substantive debate by hurling not arguments but epithets at those–Al Gore, for one–who dare raise voices of dissent or even caution."

Anyway, Hamill took a tour of the Village and solicited comments from random people. He spoke to a fellow named "Lock," who during a break from a basketball game on 6th Ave. said: "You mean...what’s his name, the guy, you know, the mustache, that guy?" A friend helped Lock along: "Saddam Hussein. You know, the guy always with the rifle, on the TV?" That detail cleared up, Lock agreed with his friends that no action should be taken, saying, "Hey man, I don’t know. Why? What for?" His buddy helped out: "I gotta question about all this. What’d the guy do to us?"

The News’ man-on-the-street then breaks for his own opinion. "This is an excellent question," Hamill says. "Virtually the entire enfeebled leadership of the Democratic Party has ignored it. We talk a bit more on the edge of the court, inside the wire fence, about how Saddam hasn’t done anything to the United States, but might do something in the future."

The capper, the key to Hamill’s argument for "Let’s Give Peace a Chance," comes from a lady with "frizzled gray hair" on Thompson St. She’s suspicious of Hamill, thinks he might be an FBI agent, until he convinces her he’s a newspaperman. Hamill’s pleased at her wariness: "My aging heart beats with joy: I know I’m in the old Village." She says: "I saw you a couple of weeks ago with that Nachman on NBMSG or whatever it is."

Hamill asks, "So what about Iraq?"

Her reply: "All lunatics. Saddam is a lunatic. Bush and all those people around him, right out of a booby hatch. Saddam has people starving in his country, and builds palaces. Bush, he should go into analysis and work this thing out with his father! I mean, the man needs help. We got schools falling down and he wants regime change, he calls it, in some place a million miles from here? Regime change! What are they gonna call the new place? Vichy Iraq?"

Hamill to Bush: Call the whole thing off.

I don’t mean to imply this woman is off her rocker–at least she knew who Hussein was–but what in the world does "schools falling down" in New York City have to do with a global crisis? That’s a different issue, one that involves a corrupt teachers’ union that rewards barely literate teachers. And when Hussein’s recruits get to New York City, she’ll find that more than schools are falling down. If she survives to remember her comments to the hard-boiled Hamill.

Meanwhile, Hamill’s Hollywood friends–with the notable exception of Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg, who support Bush’s Iraq policy–are raising soft money to help Democrats in the midterm elections. Barbra Streisand is the point person. On Sept. 29, Streisand, one of Bill Clinton’s favorite funny gals, sang at a fundraiser in Los Angeles and told the crowd: "I find bringing the country to the brink of war unilaterally five weeks before an election questionable and very, very frightening." Never mind that Tony Blair is solidly with the United States, and, after Iraq’s weekend declaration that it will accept no new inspection standards, China, France and Russia (after extorting some cash) will soon be in the administration’s corner as well.

Softball

Chris Matthews’ Hardball has become almost invisible since switching exclusively to MSNBC in the 9 p.m. Mon.-Fri. time slot. Last week, for example, the once-buzzworthy talk show got creamed in cable ratings, earning a minuscule .3 share compared to Fox’s Hannity & Colmes’ (1.8) and CNN’s detestable Larry King (1.3).

I certainly don’t tune in as often, but it’s got nothing to do with the competition. Matthews, who rose to tv fame by mercilessly bashing Bill Clinton in the last two years of his presidency, has become a leading cheerleader for the antiwar movement, nightly bashing the "neocons" for their influence on the Bush doctrine of international preemption rather than containment. Newsweek’s smarmy Howard Fineman, used as Matthews’ political expert, doesn’t help with his ubiquitous presence, but it’s the host’s "Masters of War" rhetoric that makes one wish that understudy Mike Barnicle would take over the program for good.

But Matthews was no match for syndicated columnist George Will–who’s popping up everywhere, promoting a new collection of his columns–late last month. The former aide to Tip O’Neill and San Francisco Chronicle columnist quizzed Will about Iraq and once again promoted the theory that men like Bill Kristol have substantially influenced Bush.

Will was polite, he’s on a tv book tour after all, but demolished Matthews’ argument. He said, in a calm, articulate voice, that while Kristol’s Weekly Standard is a political magazine he admires, its circulation is small, a speck in the publishing landscape compared to the newsweeklies and dailies, most of which are firmly against Bush’s plans to invade Iraq.

Matthews tried to goad Will by reminding him that Bush, as a 2000 presidential candidate, said he was against nation-building. Isn’t that hypocritical, the sinking host asked his guest. No, Will replied. Bush, because of world events, specifically Sept. 11, changed his position. That’s the definition of leadership, Will continued–as Matthews fell silent–the ability to adapt to unforeseen circumstances in order to best serve the country.

A knockout punch.

Red Sox: Once In a Lifetime? Please?

Once again, I struck out in preseason baseball predictions, successfully picking only the Cards and Diamondbacks to reach the playoffs. The heart triumphed over the head in saying the Red Sox would best the dreaded Yanks for the AL division championship, and I also bought the hype that propelled the Mets to a can’t-miss championship appearance.

The Shea Stadium dwellers couldn’t catch a break: not only do they play in a slum of a ballpark, but GM Steve Phillips’ wheeling and dealing proved that money doesn’t automatically buy a damn thing in baseball, something George Steinbrenner learned in the 80s and early 90s. The idiotic flap over Mike Piazza’s sexuality didn’t help, nor did the recent revelations that a few players on the team–gasp!–smoked pot. The latter "controversy" was a transparent substitute for the real drug problem in baseball, the rampant use of steroids. Barry Bonds is Hercules on the field, but I remember seeing him when he was just another great player, not BONDS, and his body was half the size it is now.

That said, although I’m hoping the Yanks get swept by the Angels this week (can you imagine Steinbrenner’s theatrics?), alternatively I’d love to see the Giants and Bombers in the World Series, with the former winning four straight. And Roger Clemens getting tossed for intentionally hitting Bonds.

As for the Bosox, Grady Little’s first season as a manager wasn’t a disgrace–the team won 93 games–but he needs to grow a backbone over the winter and discipline some of his lazy players. Sure, Manny Ramirez had an awesome season–and his missing a quarter of it because of a dumb slide at home was the beginning of the end for the team–but making only one plate appearance in Sunday’s season-ender was pretty shabby and mocked the model of Ted Williams. Likewise, the allegedly washed-up Pedro Martinez shocked the baseball establishment by finishing at 20-4 with a league-leading ERA, but his refusal to make one more start at Fenway was an insult to the hometown fans.

The Sox will have a new general manager next year, and here are a few suggestions. Tony (three homers) Clark will be gone, and he ought to be joined by Brian Daubach (streaky hitter, lousy glove), Trot Nixon (one of my favorite players, but he could fetch some decent players in a trade), Dustin Hermanson and Frank Castillo. And pardon my heresy, but if Nomar Garciaparra really does want to play in California, this is the time to trade him for a topnotch pitcher, not when his contract is up.

But I’ll end it here. It’s only Sept. 30 and already I’m talking hot stove. Pathetic.