How does someone named Doolittle survive in politics? Doesn’t that just give his opponent too much material to work with. And who would want him to co-sponsor a bill? Something called the Boucher-Doolittle bill does not sound like a good bill to me, and doesn’t reflect well on Boucher.

I wanted to blog about something else today, but it’s the weekend now and I don’t feel like thinking. So here are some announcements.
I now have categories working fully (thanks to some help by Rachel Lucas), and I want to add a “Best of IMAO” section. I think I have a good idea of what were the popular posts, but I’d appreciate it if you have any suggestions – especially if they were posts from a while ago.
I’m getting a feeling people like the Rumsfeld posts. To be honest, I usually do those when I’m having trouble coming up with something to post about because they’re really easy to write for. Well, to give people what they want but make sure I don’t do them too much such that they get tiresome, Rumsfeld will be a once a week feature. Next one will be Wednesday (man, I got some great ideas; I can’t wait…)
John Hawkins has named me an “Honorable Mention” on his best of blogs list. This reminded me there are a number of good blogs out there I haven’t been reading and need to add to my blogroll. One is USS Clueless, whom I keep hearing good things about, but had never read because I found his post sizes too daunting (as soon as I saw them, my brain would shut down in protest). Frankly, my attention span is so bad I’d probably have trouble reading my own blog. Anyway, if there are any other glaring omissions from my blogroll, drop me a line. Also, if you have a blog and want a link exchange, don’t be afraid to e-mail me.
See you all later, and thanks for the readership.

In response to us finding warheads, Saddam comes right back at us with some more crazy rhetoric. “The people of Baghdad have resolved to compel the Mongols of this age to commit suicide on its walls,” Saddam announced to his people, but it’s hard to be impressed. North Korea has really raised the bar on loony war talk, and, in comparison, Saddam sounds like he’s making rational commentary. But, since America is supposed to be the best at everything, why doesn’t Bush ever come out and try and top them? He could call a press conference and announce, “Our enemies will be clubbed like baby seals by our righteous might, and the bones of their children will be ground into a protein powder and sold at a marked up price at GNC.” Then again, it would different for us because we could actually do what we say, so I think it misses the point of crazy rhetoric.
Anyway, I was just wondering if, after we found those warheads, did we take them away or did we just leave them there so that he may fill them with bad things and eventually launch them at us? I know, I know, you’re probably saying, “Who cares. We’ll kill them all no matter what they have.” But we have to be careful about things like that because winning the war with Iraq isn’t a done deal. Actually, there are a number of ways we could lose.
TOP TEN WAYS WE COULD ACTUALLY LOSE A WAR AGAINST IRAQ
10. When meaning to bomb air defenses in Baghdad, faulty map instead causes us to obliterate the Chinese embassy in Finland.
9. Saddam has one mustache to rule them all.
8. Due to confusion, we make love, not war.
7. God, having become a disillusioned loner, is drawn into a militant wing of Islam.
6. “Dude, where’s my tank?”
5. Rip in space-time continuum causes us to be thrown into a universe where America isn’t ridiculously more powerful than everyone else. (NOTE: I’m not actually sure physics would allow such a universe to exists.)
4. Like a bunch of Mongols, we are compelled to commit suicide on Baghdad’s walls.
3. On the day we’re supposed to start the war, we like totally sleep in.
2. Every man, woman, child, and dog in the U.S. suddenly drops dead of a heart attack.
And, the number one way we could actually lose a war against Iraq–
War takes place in Saddam’s dreams.