March 24, 2003: It's been a while. I've been busy, and I haven't really felt like blogging. But I'm back.

I heard Rush Limbaugh crowing today that "all our reasons for this war have been totally vindicated already." Or words to that effect. Why did he say that? (1) There was an al-Qaeda training camp in northern Iraq. (2) There was a big "chemical weapons plant." Of course what Rush didn't mention is that everybody has known about that al-Qaeda camp for months, and there's no connection between it and Saddam. It's in the Kurdish-held territory. Rush knows that, but he must also know how stupid his audience is. They'll think the al-Qaeda were training in one of Saddam's palaces. The "weapons plant" was first mentioned in 1991, so I wouldn't call it a big discovery. And there were no weapons found in it, another little point Rush failed to mention. But to the Dittoheads it doesn't matter. Rush never gets it wrong, so we're totally vindicated.

March 12, 2003: Haven't blogged in a while, but today I was listening to some moronic talk show host telling me how good I had it, now that Bush has driven the market to near its five-year low. "We've in touch with ourselves. We're more real!" I guess what we really need to put us in touch with our real selves and show how we handle adversity is another Great Depression. This moron probably thinks so.

March 7, 2003: Here's my take on the whole Iraq mess. What do you do when you're faced with a massive (and record) deficit, when unemployment is rising, and when a double-dip recession is staring you in the face? You use the "Great Satan" defense, as I'm naming it in honor of the Ayatollah. You're the leader, and you have people who are likely to blame things on you, so you give them someone else to hate instead, an easily identifiable enemy, a Great Satan, who'll take their minds off the fact that gas prices are soaring, that the economy is in the tank, and that things are looking worse, not better.

It's working for Kim Jong Il in North Korea. He's just using us the way we're using Saddam.

And it's working for Dub. But I don't know how long he can keep it up.

I thought the press conference last night was a mess. First of all, he didn't call on Helen Thomas, becoming the first president to ignore her in about half a century. He didn't call on the Washington Post guy, either. When asked about a cost estimate for the war, he didn't answer, implying that he didn't know, which, of course, isn't true. I'm sure they have estimates galore. He repeated the same catch phrases over and over. (I counted four times for "If Saddam doesn't disarm, we will disarm him.") I guess his handlers pounded certain "talking points" into his head. He said at least twice, "if this war is forced on us." Nobody is forcing us into a war except George W. Bush, as I see it.

He also said that "it's up to North Korea's neighbors" to handle that situation because Kim is more of a threat to them than to us. But a part of one of their missles is in Alaska, not part of one of Saddam's. Today, one of their top guys says they're willing to "put the torch to New York." I don't recall Saddam having said anything at all like that. It would seem to me he's much more of a threat to his neighbors than to us, but Bush hasn't said it's up them to handle things.

And his "neighbors" comment caused the Japanese stock market to fall to a 20-year low this morning. Dub isn't content with destroying our economy; he's going to work on the world's. Speaking of the economy, gas prices aren't going down any time soon. They're going up. The job figures were awful this morning. I think we're in for that double dip, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Dub ramped up those terror warnings to red to take our mind off that.

As you can tell, I'm very depressed about all this, and I don't see a good result from any of it. Maybe Dub will pull it off and prove me wrong. I really, really hope so.

March 5, 2003: You know you're thinking too much about Iraq when you wake up in the morning and the first thought that pops into your head is: "How long has it been since Dub mentioned the Iraq and al-Qaida connection?" The answer seems to be that he hasn't mentioned it since Colin Powell tried it out on the UN and pretty much got laughed at around the world. The connection was so tenuous that nobody believed in it, mainly because (in my humble opinion) it never existed. So Dub has finally dropped it. I guess his propaganda team now thinks the idea is firmly implanted in people's minds, so they don't need to tell that lie, er, make that excuse any longer. Dub's latest line seems to be that we're going to commit a huge war of agression to bring democracy to the Middle East. Yes, that's what America has always been about: forcing our form of government on everybody else because it's good for them.

March 1, 2003: We saw DAREDEVIL yesterday. It was OK, but Ben Affleck isn't much as an action hero. I'm sure I missed many of the little in-jokes for the comics fanboys, too. Maybe HULK will be better.

February 27, 2003: We went to Dallas last week to DFW Con, a small regional SF convention. We had a good time, though there weren't too many people there that we knew. We left just in time to avoid the ice storm.

Mr. Rogers has died, and there's all kinds of advice about how to help your kids deal with it. What about helping me deal with it. Sure, I'm an Old Guy, but my kids grew up with Mr. Rogers, and I watched, too. Maybe Old Guys are supposed to be able to deal with death. Well, I don't like it much, and I don't like dealing with it. Mr. Rogers is in a better neighborhood now, I guess, but that doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.

February 19, 2003: I had to go to Wal-Mart's today, so I turned on the car radio, and there was Rush Limbaugh. El Rushbo assured me and his other billions of listeners that Dub "knows a lot more than he's telling" about the Iraq situation. If so, I wonder why all the secrecy. Why can't he just clue us in? Then everyone would be on his side.

The Maharushie also informed me that the reason Germany and France are against the war is that they both have "dirty hands" and are guilty of supplying Iraq with the means to create weapons of mass destruction. It's times like that when I'd like to have old Rush in the same room so I could ask who sold him all those biological weapons we're so worried about. Ronnie and George the First, I believe. With Rummy's able assistance, of course.

February 19, 2003: I've decided about another thing that worries me about Dub's administration, and that's the total lack of diplomacy. I wasn't all that fond of George the First, but at least when he went to war, he could build a coalition. Dub and his crew are so arrogant that they can't. The First sent James Baker all over the world for meetings. Dub makes a phone call, and it's not working. We've been able to bribe some nations into a coalition, but look who they are: Bulgaria, Hungary, Spain, Denmark, etc. Not exaclty powerhouses, and most of them won't contribute a single soldier. None of them will contribute a cent to rebuilding Iraq. And now Turkey wants a bigger bribe. I think very little thinking and planning went into building a coalition, and I think people who say Dub and his gang are arrogant and condescending are right. Sure, we're the most powerful nation on earth, but we don't have to go around telling everyone that we are and that they'd better shape up. That's no way to win allies.

February 17, 2003: On Thursday we're heading for ConDFW, a small regional SF convention in its second year. We'll get to see some friends, but we probably won't sell any books there. It'll be nice to have a little road trip, however.

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?

February 8, 2003: Speaking of gas prices, as I was last time, I figure that by the end of this month we'll be paying $2.00 a gallon for gasoline. If that happens, it can't be good for the economy. People will quit spending money on other things, consumer spending will fall, and the market will go down even more. It's no wonder I think Dub is a dud.

February 6, 2003: The other day I was filling up my car and thinking about the high price of gas. I can remember when it was anywhere from 20 to 25 cents a gallon. Of course there were times when I didn't have the 25 cents. I remember Bob Tyus' old '40 Chevy (a car that's played a cameo role in a couple of my short stories). He used to hit the dashboard with the heel of his hand, and if the fuel gauge needle would bounce, there was enough gas to keep us going for another hour or so. There were times when we'd put together all the money we had and buy gas, and more than once all the money we had was under a quarter. We probably held out ten cents to buy a couple of cokes at the Dairy Queen.

February 5, 2002: So here's one thing Colin Powell said: "Iraq is working on developing missiles with a range of 1,000 kilometers — about 620 miles — or more, putting Russia and other nations beyond Iraq's immediate neighbors in potential danger." All I'm asking is for someone to tell me how this is a threat to the U.S.

February 5, 2003: Didn't I read that Blogger now has over 1,000,000 subscribers? That means there's a chance in a million that someone will actually read this. And since I haven't ever told anyone I'm blogging, that means that no one will ever see this except by accident. So why am I writing it? Damned if I know.