Today was a bad day for W. (Don't feel sorry for him though, it's all his fault)

While President Bush has repeatedly cited an alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, this meeting has turned out to be as much a fraud as the African uranium claims, and the vast majority of Bush's rationale for the war. The 9/11 commission has found that this meeting has long been seen as questionable by numerous intelligence officials. In addition, there is solid evidence that has been available, showing that Atta was in the United States at the time of the supposed meeting. That the claim was dubious and unsubstantiated has been known by the Bush administration for some time, however they chose not to take these problems seriously, choosing instead to mislead the public by emphasizing this 'meeting' as a link between Iraq and 9/11. (Story here)

Also, polls taken by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq show that only 2 percent of Iraqis view American forces as liberators, while 92 percent view them as occupiers. In addition, 55 percent of Iraqis said they would feel safer if American soldiers left immediately. Although this doesn't mean we should leave immediately, it does severely hurt Bush's single remaining solid rationale for the war -- namely that the occupation was for the good of the Iraqi people, and that they welcomed us as liberators. (Story here)

In a further colission of fact with the idiot-bubble of W, a statement presented by a bipartisan group of retired diplomats and military officers stated that "We all believe that current administration policies have failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership." The statement was signed by 27 experienced officials, including a former CIA director, a retired chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous intelligence officials and diplomats. "It justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of uncertain intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, and by a cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda and the attacks of September 11," it said. "The evidence did not support this argument." The group also said "Our security has been weakened." (Story here)

What's this? The left has come across a good argument, and fouled it up beyond recognition with mindless rhetoric and spin? Whatever shall we do? Odhav to the rescue!

The liberal news site Slate came out with a story which I am now delighted to de-spin and present to you.

The case of Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber" and American citizen who was detained by the U.S. government without trial for over 2 years, has brought a new development. The Department of Justice released a 7 page report presenting the case against Padilla, which hinges mainly on information extracted from Padilla during 2 years of solitary confinement and interrogation.

First off, I would like to point out that logically, the fact that there is evidence in this case against Padilla is certainly not a refutation of the argument that the government should have to present evidence in this and future cases against alleged "terrorists". If anything is to be determined from this evidence, it is that Padilla was held without being charged for over 2 years before ANY form of evidence was presented, and in a country that cared about the Constitution, that alone should have resulted in more than a couple resignation letters by now.

But such is not the federal government of our times. They will not be bothered by pesky, old documents such as the constitution. "There is no problem." they claim, "Instead of calling him a citizen, let's call him an enemy combatant. Certainly the government grants no rights to enemy combatants! Innocent until proven guilty?!? Ridiculous. Let's just make life easier for everyone and invent a completely arbitrary label which, when applied to a person, allows us to deprive them of their constitutional rights!"

"Well," the feeble of mind might venture, "he's a terrorist! Terrorists don't deserve the same protections as us!" What exactly are you basing that assertion on, that he's a terrorist? Are you basing it on the evidence that you are claiming you should not have to present in the first place? This, my friends, is called CIRCULAR LOGIC. To detain someone on grounds that they are a terrorist, and then deny them the right to be proven innocent or guilty of that charge because you say they are a terrorist, is probably the most illogical and idiotic thing I have ever heard a public official suggest. I am prepared to state here and now that any elected official taking up that position should be removed from public office immediately for not only incompetence, but also for failing to uphold the most basic tenets of our constitution, which they swore to do.

This means that the following should be removed from office immediately, humiliated for their idiocy, whipped mercilessly and publicly shunned for insanity:

John Ashcroft
Everyone else in the Department of Justice

But in all seriousness...

There is also the issue, pointed out by the Slate article, that the evidence in the report is based on information obtained over the course of 2 years of solitary confinement and constant interrogation. Is this evidence credible? It would certainly not be admissible in a court of law. But of course, we don't have to worry about the courts...not when we have circular logic to take care of the little inconveniences presented by things like the Constitution and hundreds of years of political thought, bloodshed and toil in the name of freedom.

I do not think, I KNOW that the American people are not this ridiculous and mindless. How is this issue the topic of debate? Have we become so partisan, scared, or blindly hateful that we cannot recognize madness when we see it?

I think John Ashcroft is trying to give me a heart attack.