On Crossfire yesterday, Robert Novak said it's unfair to conclude from the lack of any evidence at all turning up of recent viable nuclear weapon or WMD programs in Iraq that such programs haven't existed within the last six years or so, because the search is still on. Presumably he extends the same deference to O.J. Simpson, who is still searching the golf courses of America for Nicole's "real killers," with the same probable ultimate result.

In a Washington Post article by Peter Slevin (sorry, I can't provide a link), Colin Powell is quoted as saying "What we demanded of Iraq was that they account for all of this and they prove the negative of our hypothesis (that they had WMDs)."

Um, how does one do that, prove the negative of a hypothesis? It sounds real neat, and all that, but how is it done?

At Least We're Consistent

Well, this is special. Dick Cheney is urging and end to the international rift that arose out of our country's insistence on going to war in Iraq on still unproven, probably fabricated reasons. He's unapologetic about our thumbing our nose at the rest of the world, he's unapologetic about the lies he and the other members of the Bush administration told, he's unapologetic about the bullying tactics we've employed, about the diplomatic snubs, and he refuses to acknowledge the real reason we are looking for "Old Europe" to bail us out (we're in deep shit in Iraq and can't pull out on our own).

Perhaps that's the reason the rest of the world won't help us. Until and unless our leaders are willing to engage in an honest dialogue with the world community about how we ended up in this mess and what our true long term goals in Iraq and the Middle East are, it's unrealistic for the rest of the world to even consider climbing into this mess with us. I don't expect that to happen. As displayed in last week's State of the Union address, our leaders aren't even willing to engage in an honest dialogue with the American people.

Welcome...this is a new blog for me, but if you find what I write here interesting, please check here for my postings to my previous blog.

CBS, which justified its move earlier this week refusing to accept ads from PETA and MoveOn for airing during the superbowl, by saying they have a clear and long standing practice of not accepting advocacy ads on controversial subjects, will be airing an anti-drug ad put out by the White House.

Both CBS and the White House have mocked MoveOn's equating of the White House ad with the MoveOn ad by asking what could be controversial about an anti-drug ad and what constituency would run a counter ad.

As I recall, past ads in this campaign have equated buying drugs in the street with support of terrorism. No, what could be controversial about that?