February 15, 2003: Headline and first paragraph from Washington Times article today:

Bin Laden son, al Qaeda terrorists spotted in Iran
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

U.S. intelligence agencies say Osama bin Laden's oldest son, Sad, is in Iran along with other senior al Qaeda terrorists, as Iranian military forces have been placed on their highest state of alert in anticipation of a U.S. attack on Iraq, according to intelligence officials.

So tell me again. We're attacking Iraq because there's a connection with al-Qaeda, right?

February 15, 2003: My blog is never listed under "blogs of note" on blogger's homepage. Conspiracy? I report, you decide.

February 15, 2003: Well, I was right. George W. didn't hold a press conference about the latest terror threat, but then you can't blame him since it turned out to be based on a lie that our "intelligence" services believed and didn't even try to corroborate. He hasn't held any press conferences about the U.N.'s latest little rebellion against the U.S., either. He gives "addresses," where he reads things written for him by others, but there's never any give and take. Wonder why? And I wonder how long it will be before he blames the world's distaste for him on Bill Clinton?

February 14, 2003: Here's another completely unbiased report. But first this word from ABC News:

>>The officials said that a claim made by a captured al Qaeda member that Washington, New York or Florida would be hit by a "dirty bomb" sometime this week had proven to be a product of his imagination.

The informant described a detailed plan that an al Qaeda cell operating in either Virginia or Detroit had developed a way to slip past airport scanners with dirty bombs encased in shoes, suitcases, or laptops, sources told ABCNEWS. The informant reportedly cited specific targets of government buildings and Christian or clerical centers.

"This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true," said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief and ABCNEWS consultant. It was only after the threat level was elevated to orange — meaning high — last week, that the informant was subjected to a polygraph test by the FBI, officials told ABCNEWS.>>>

Now of course they aren't going to back off the warning because that would make them look like the idiots they are. And this is the kind of "intelligence" that's going to get us into a war! I can't believe it. In fact, I'm almost embarrassed for the country. Anyone who thinks Osama bin Laden didn't win hasn't taken a look around lately. People are running around like Chicken Little, looking for the sky to fall and thinking that a sheet of plastic and some duct tape will save them. Whole cities are in full panic mode, aided and abetted by the wonderful deparment of Homeland Insecurity. It's just pitiful.

And speaking of "intelligence," how about this bit:

>>On Tuesday, George Tenet, the CIA director, told the armed services committee panel that the agency had provided the UN inspectors with all the information it had on "high" and "moderate" interest locations inside Iraq – those sites where there was a possibility of finding banned weapons. But Mr Tenet later told a different panel that he had been mistaken and that there were in fact "a handful" of locations the UN inspectors may not have known about.

Senator Levin, from Michigan, responded by saying the CIA director had not been telling the truth. Citing a number of classified letters he had obtained from the agency, he said it was clear the CIA had not shared information with the inspectors about a "large number of sites of significant value".>>>

Gee, can you believe that the CIA would lie? Damn right they would, and I'm starting to remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, based on an incident that we now know never occurred. And then there was those troops that George the First said were massed on the border of Kuwait and that nobody could ever find on the satellite photos. As I say, we're going to war on the basis of lies and falsified "intelligence," and nobody seems to care.

February 12, 2003: It's hard to write this, as I am huddled in my office with plastic duct-taped over the windows, and it's crowded with the three-day's supply of food, water, and Energizers.

Here's my latest theory: I'd give heavy odds that any other president within the last 40 years would have held a press conference today to respond to the latest bin Laden threat. I'll also give even heavier odds that George W. Bush won't hold a press conference. Why? I think there are two possibilities:

A. He doesn't want to reveal his fiendishly clever plan to trick bin Laden the way he tricked the liberals with Colin Powell.

B. He would look like a doofus.

Guess which one I think is more likely?

If he did hold a press conference and if I were a reporter, here's what I'd ask:

1. If you'd gotten Osama bin Laden dead or alive as you promised, we wouldn't be huddled in our offices, would we?

2. If you'd gotten Osama bin Laden dead or alive as you promised, Saddam wouldn't have anyone to give his alleged weapons to, would he?

3. Why are you afraid to say the name "Osama bin Laden"?

4. Wouldn't you call it stretching a point to say that a tape denouncing Saddam Hussein as an infidel proves that he and bin Laden are plotting against the U.S. together?

I'd probably never get to question 2, since, as we all know, it's treasonous to question the president about such things. It was fine to question Bill Clinton about anything and everything, but it's unAmerican to question Dub.

February 10, 2003: I hear that one of Bush's staff called the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." That's so good I'm almost willing to go over to the Bushies. But not quite.

One of my problems with the Iraq war is that I don't trust my own government. That NASA lie I mentioned the other day is just one tiny example, a small lie, but a bald-faced one, and the truth would have been better.

Here's another example: Tom DeLay sent out a letter over his signature that called union leaders "scum-sucking pigs." OK, so that's an exaggeration. What he said was, "the big labor bosses are willing to harm freedom-loving workers, the war effort and the economy to acquire more power." To his great surprise, union leaders were a tad chapped, so now his office says that he didn't send the letter, or if he did, he didn't read it, or if he did, he didn't sign it, or if he did, he doesn't believe it. And he's still holding those weekly staff meetings with the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy.

And: "Read my lips: No new taxes."

Not to mention: "I never had sex with that woman."

And finally: Richard Nixon.

February 9, 2003: Here's why I still don't get the whole war with Iraq thing:

We’re told that we’re attacking Iraq because Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. But the way I understand the conditions George Bush has imposed, if Saddam had given up all his “weapons of mass destruction,” he could have kept right on killing people in his palaces, in his homes, and in the streets, just as long as he does it with a shotgun, rifle, handgun, grenade, knife, what have you. If the Kurds bothered him, he could bomb the heck out of them with conventional bombs. So we’re not attacking him because he’s a bad guy.

We’re told that we’re attacking Iraq because Saddam Hussein has a huge, powerful army, because he has nuclear weapons and the deliver systems for them, because he’s been threatening us and neighboring countries, and because he’s a real looney tune. No, wait, that’s North Korea. Granted that Saddam is a looney tune, his raggedy army is only 1/5 the size it was during the Gulf War days, and it was pitiful then. Until George Bush said he was going to take him out, Saddam hadn’t threatened us or anybody else. And if he does have nuclear weapons, he doesn’t have the delivery systems. So those reasons don’t hold up.

We’re told that we’re attacking Iraq because there’s an al-Qaeda connection. Well, there seems to be some suspicion, if not direct proof, that an al-Qaeda member went to Iraq for medical treatment after being wounded in Afghanistan. So what? About 15 members of Osama bin Laden’s family live in Houston. Is Houston next on the list? And recently when a federal grand jury in New York subpoenaed a woman to testify about her husband, a suspected al-Qaeda member, what government spirited her out of the county? Iraq? No, Saudi Arabia. And tell me again how many of those 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq? None? Right. And they were from? Saudi Arabia. Now here’s something I read on ABCnews.com on Sunday morning (2/9):

“If there is a war with Iraq, Qatar is where U.S. Central Command will be located.
“But at least one member of the royal family is known to have regularly provided safe haven for numerous al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden.”

If we’re going to attack the country with solid, confirmed al-Qaeda connections, it sure isn’t Iraq. Are we a bunch of hypocrites, or what?