WATR

This morning at 8:30 am west coast time I'll be on KRBS in Oroville, CA, mostly talking about this article from TomPaine.com. If you live in Oroville, you should listen. If you don't live in Oroville, you should move there by 8:30 am west coast time.

Anyway, there were several things I couldn't squeeze into the TomPaine.com piece. So I'm including them here, in the article commentary track.

1. The title was originally "The More Things Don't Change at All, the More They Stay the Same."

2. Truly, god only knows what was going through George Bush's head when he made the false claim about Iraqi missiles. But I speculate that somewhere, in the hall of mirrors that is his mind, he was thinking about Iraqi research into long range missiles. According to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, Iraq was engaged in such undeclared research, which would have been a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. (1441 was the resolution passed in November, 2002.)

The credibility of the U.S. government in these matters is, uh, not so great. Still, let's assume what the Iraq Survey Group says is accurate. The Washington Post's Barton Gellman wrote a long article claiming it would have taken Iraq six years to build these missiles. That's six years without UN inspections -- with them it would have taken much longer. And there's no guarantee the missiles would have worked in any case.

Now, some people think there's a difference between (a) weapons that exist now and (b) rudimentary research into weapons that might hypothetically exist in six years. And frankly, these people make me mad. They are the same people who think there's a difference between (a) me being married to Madonna now and (b) my rudimentary research into how I could hypothetically be married to Madonna in six years.

Face it, people: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. Hence, just as the US was justified in invading Iraq, I'm justified in invading Madonna's mansion and waiting for my bride to come home. Why can't the so-called "police" understand this?

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

3. Bush made another incorrect claim at the press conference: that 50 tons of mustard gas had been found in Libya. However, the press actually mentioned this. (In fact, it was only 25 tons.)

What was the difference between this and the missile statement? Presumably, the fact that "The White House moved quickly Wednesday to correct the record, with press secretary Scott McClellan seeking out reporters to point out the mistake." In other words, the media will point out Bush's mistakes when they have permission to do so. But not otherwise.