The liberal media got itself in such a tizzy this week over the "leaked" memo of National Security Advisor Steve Hadley to President Bush that disparaged Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki.

It hasn't dawned on our genius reporters that the memo was written to be leaked. I can't believe that the president's national-security adviser would write something so long, so rambling, and so mediocre to George W. Bush. I mean, I'd die of embarrassment before I let any such thing go into the Oval Office with my name on it.

You can see it's a group effort, because with one exception - the sensible suggestion that, at long last, we expand the program that embeds U.S. military personnel in Iraqi military and police units - there's hardly a serious thought in the whole document.

While setting up a wireless network is easier today than ever, it’s not the type of thing a computer novice is likely to try on his or her own as it requires at least some degree of technical awareness.

One could assume that people who have set up their own wireless networks would be among the users of anti-virus and other security programs. They are almost certainly among those who avoid opening e-mail attachments, who check downloads for viruses, and set up firewalls to keep out unwanted intruders.

But most people’s concerns over security stops at the entrance to their hard drive, it seems.

She's a Renaissance woman, whose talents run from scholarship to music and sport. But in this interview with Bret Stephens of the Wall St. Journal, Condoleezza Rice often seems oddly detached from the life-and-death quality of the war against the terror masters.

Indeed, she doesn't even call it a war, and the things she says about it are sometimes striking - headline quality remarks - but more often very peculiar.

To begin with, she doesn't expect us to win this "battle, if you will, or a struggle," during the Bush presidency. Her mission for the next two years is not victory, but to put "some fundamentals in place."

I wish the interviewer had asked her to define these "fundamentals," so that we could better judge whether or not they are worth the lives and limbs of our children.

Symantec Corporation said recently that it found itself forced to start dealing with spyware and adware simply because users of Symantec antivirus programs really couldn't tell the difference between a system infected with malware (virus, Trojan, worm, and so forth) and a system infested with adware or spyware.

For the past 3 months, nearly one out of every five calls for help to Symantec ended up involving spyware or adware rather than what they call malware. To The Point readers know that I’ve been using the opposite terminology. Viruses, trojans and worms were in one category, and spyware and adware I called malware.

These days, virus experts recognize that certain threats should rightly be called blended, in that they combine virus, worm, and sometimes even trojan characteristics within a single executable.