It's not just a river in Egypt anymore

Of course, I am talking about denial. Specifically, George W. Bush et al's refusal to face the facts on the utter lack of connections between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein something that is obvious to slightly more than half the population (the other half voted for Bush in 2000 remember) and anyone in the intelligence community.

Maria Newman of the Times has this in the lede: " day after the commission investigating 9/11 reported that it had found no evidence of a 'collaborative relationship' between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, President Bush reiterated today that there were nonetheless links between the terror group and the Iraqi dictator.

"'The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaida is because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida," Mr. Bush told reporters after a cabinet meeting today."

Such as? The truth is, all the wackos at AEI and other neoconservative think tanks can't find any proof that can stand up to the light of a table lamp, and the White House knows. Yet, they think they can still con John Q. Public (and not Jane, but Mr. White Male Middle Class voter in the exurbs) into thinking that was the reason for this horribbly botched occupation of Iraq.

Like the sand dunes in Saudi Arabia, the rationale for this war has shifted almost daily, each less credible than the next. And the most laughable one of them has floated back up the top because it seems to be the most powerful argument, if it were actually true (which it isn't).

Just sit back and think for a second. If were a secular, communist-lite despot of a 3rd world county sitting on a pile of oil (the 3rd largest proven reserves in the world) would A) make friends with Islamic radicals who want to sever Arabs ties to(what in their view is) the corrupting influence of crude that creates cozy relations with the "Infidels" in the West or B)Invade a weak nation with lost of oil to your south (which used to be part of your country many decades ago) and then use weapons or the threat of weapons to expand your control over the Middle East and become a much bigger despot.

Obviously, Saddam chose B...Isn't it what you would do if you liked money, power, writing romance novels, and letting your son strap electrodes to soccer players' testicles? If you chose A, you would have been invade 5 years ago at least and there would have a lot more evidence to prove it.

George W. Bush is a man of convictions alright. He becomes convinced of something, no matter what evidence presents himself, he will never change his mind. As long as he "knows in his heart" that it's true, then that should be good enough for the American people and world, even if its the most obvious and boldfaced lie the world has ever seen.

So why does Bush and Cheney still like to dust off and wheel out this old, tarnished lie? Because it scares the crap out of us and that's still what many of our poor soldiers believe who are dying to avenge 9/11 while getting shot at and blown up in Baghdad.

George W. Bush is a man of convictions alright. He becomes convinced of something, no matter what evidence presents himself, he will never change his mind. As long as he "knows in his heart" that it's true, then that should be good enough for the American people and world, even if its the most obvious and boldfaced lie the world has ever seen.