Go back and take a look at Mel Brooks's hilarious portrayal of the ineptly corrupt 'Gov' in 'Blazing Saddles' and tell me it's not a dead-on impersonation of Junior, albeit thirty years too soon. I guess Hedy Lamarr (that's HED-LEY") would be Karl Rove or Andy Card.

The good news is that there is at least one element of the corporate media is still willing to support the Bush-Cheney Lies about WMD and 9/11. The View's Elisabeth Hasselbeck -- long known for her originality of thought, rather than just repeating the dogma set forth by authority figures -- still believes in her heart of hearts that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US or anyone outside of Iraq in 2003. So Kevin even though according to all available evidence you are incorrect in your claim that Iraq was "co-operating" with al-Qaeda, alas, you are not alone in your wishful thinking, even at this late date.

In the words of Costanza, "It's not a lie, if YOU believe it."

Nice shot, Kevin, regarding 'The View'. Except that one of the best (if not the only) candid discussions regarding the pros and cons of invading Iraq took place on another daytime show, called 'Oprah' (perhaps you've heard of it?). Tom Friedman had condescended to explain to all the housewives the necessity of deposing Saddam; but Oprah's non-sense audience wasn't buying it. Them: "Explain this to me like I'm stupid: WHY are we dropping the hunt for bin-Laden and the terrorists responsible for 9/11 in order to invade Iraq NOW, in 2003?" Friedman, clearly flustered, convinced absolutely nobody; the world was much too flat for him that particular day in the American heartland. So don't knock daytime TV.

I'll pass on any neo-con "scholarship" bolstering the fictitious republican case for war. Life is too short, and if it wasn't credible enough for the 9/11 Commission and/or the corporate media (which gave Junior a pass on absolutely positively everything up until last year's White House Correspondents' Dinner), it's certainly a waste of time. That goes for Able Danger, and the fuselage at Salman Pak, as well as aluminum tubes, 45-minute delivery systems, uranium from Africa, mobile weapons labs, reconstituted nuclear weapons, etc.

On the other hand, your suggestion to look to the leadership of hostile countries for candid and accurate information on their weapons capabilities is brilliant. I wonder why the U.S. didn't think of simply asking the Soviets about missiles in Cuba in '62? It could've saved a lot of time and confusion. We know that hostile governments never exaggerate their own strength, in order to, say, deter an attack. Even the U.S. Army would never do anything deceptive, like number its airborne divisions 82nd or 101st, thus implying there are 81 or 100 OTHER equally strong airborne divisions out there ready to go. Thank the Christian god we live in a world where governments are always honest with each other, so that there is never any misunderstanding about who can be pushed around and who cannot.

Let's take it one step further, and just ask bin-Laden about his plans (you remember him, don't you, Kevin?). Maybe he'll tell us that Iraq is where the Americans are now the most exposed and vulnerable, and thus for now the "central front" in his jihad. Hey, maybe the neo-cons can even use that line for political purposes against the Dems and Libs, and cite ol' bin-Laden himself as proof that Iraq is indeed the "central front" in their crusade against Islam, just like Junior and Cheney have insisted all along. Brilliant!

I of course meant to say "Oprah's NO nonsense audience." Sorry to all.

MCE337, as you might be one of Salon's many readers outside the U.S., you might not know that this already actually happened. That when people within the last year or so finally began openly questioning the Bush-Cheney talking point that Iraq is the "central front" in ANYTHING (besides republican election campaigns), the neo-cons began quoting a "captured al-Qaeda document" in which the War in Occupied Iraq supposedly is deemed "central" to global jihad. "See?" the jingos will say. "If you don't believe us, that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror; listen to bin-Laden." Amazing, but true.

You are absolutely correct in thinking that quoting al-Qaeda in a last-ditch bid for support for their failed war strategy should have brought: a) howls of derision from the public, and b) a renewed round of inquiry from the media and the Congress into why bin-Laden and al-Qaeda have been left alone these past five years. What you might not grasp, and what everyone outside the U.S. MUST understand, is that the mass media here is firmly under corporate control, and as a result the news we see is VERY different than the news seen throughout the rest of the world. U.S. news consists mostly of celebrity gossip and local crime stories, typically involving missing white women. At this moment, for example, while the rest of the world is focused on the carnage in Iraq, Americans are following an alleged rape in the state of North Carolina, and the recovery of two missing children in the state of Missouri. When Iraq is mentioned at all, it is only to show a few seconds of the latest car bombing, etc., without comment, before quickly moving on to the more popular stuff.

Seriously, you probably can't imagine just how inane the "news" is here. But why do you think someone like Bush Jr. could ever be "elected" in the first place? and why so many Americans to this day believe Saddam was behind 9/11 and WMD were found in Iraq?