So I'm looking through Yahoo's latest headlines when I came across this little gem: "Iraqi politicians warned of political turmoil after failing to meet a deadline on the country's new constitution."

Oh, yeah. That would be such a shame. After all, Iraq has been such an example of stability and tranquility for the last 2 years, it would be just awful if its track record should somehow be marred by turmoil.

Yesterday was the big day for the Iraqi constitution to be adopted, thereby heralding the birth of wonderful new era of peace, love, and democracy in Iraq.

Except, well, they had to put it off for another week. The new deadline is August 22. Feel free to place your bets on whether or not that will happen. My money's on "Not a chance in hell."

This is a perfect example of why despotism is a superior form of government: There's no need for pesky constitutions or other such nonsense because what you say is the law of the land. And if you change your mind overnight, so be it. There's no need to worry about what's legal and what's not, because you--as the tyrant--get to decide!

I miss those days.

Kids: Just say "no" to drugs. Otherwise your brains will turn to mush and you'll end up babbling utter nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the real world. Just look at the tragic example set by Donald Rumsfeld, who apparently has gotten into the medicinal marijuana cabinet once too often: "Despite their headline-grabbing violence, the insurgents in Iraq are failing," the Secretary of Defense said on Thursday in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, California.

August isn't yet half over, and 54 American soldiers have died in Iraq so far this month, and 1853 since the war began in March of 2003.

That's an intersting definition of the word "failing." One can only conclude that Rummy went to the same grammar school as Vice President Dick "Last Throes" Cheney.

It's all Bush's fault, you know. Remember when he challenged the insurgents to "Bring it on" two years ago? That was at the beginning of July of 2003. Any guess on how many US troops have died since then? Well, if you look at the stats at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, and add up the monthly totals over the last two years (starting with July 1 of 2003 and through August 14 of this year), The number is 1647.

1647!!! That averages out to just over 63 dead per month.

The total for March-June of 2003--prior to Bush's challenge--was 206. That's a five month period, and it works out to less than 52 per month.

So don't blame the insurgents. All they did was accept an invitation from the President of the United States.

Here's the stupidest damn thing I've ever heard: Some official of the puppet government currently illegally occupying my palaces says that I could be executed after my first trial if I am convicted and sentenced to death.

HA!!!!

First of all, that statement assumes that there will even be a trial. At the rate the members of the current so-called Iraqi government are being kidnapped, beheaded, assassinated, and blown up, it's not entirely clear if there's going to be anyone left by the time my trial does roll around.

Secondly, the only reason I'm in jail is because my country was illegally invaded by some doofus who meant to actually invade Iran, but can't tell the difference between a "Q" and an "N." This is not surprising, however. What do you expect from some moron who is willing to ignore over a century of scientific research and declare that creationism should be taught in his country's public schools alongside actual science?

That debate was settled years and years ago! Everyone now knows man is descended from camels!

Thirdly, that trial is going to be for massacring Shiites! There's not a Sunni in this country that's going to convict me for that, so this trial is going to be nothing more than a waste of looted money.... Er, I mean, um, a waste of tax dollars!

Besides, if I'm put to death, who's going to put down the insurgency?

Poor President Bush....

The crazed mother of a marine who was killed after being in Iraq for only four days has camped outside the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas where he is vacationing. She wants to personally deliver her anti-war message to him, but he refuses to meet with the lady.

Now the woman is threatening to camp outside the White House itself once the President goes back to DC. Needless to say, the press is having a field day with this story.

Oh well.... That's what happens when you invade the wrong damn country.

Yesterday's Washington Post had a riveting article about a soldier who was wounded a few months ago by a mine. Two others in the Humvee he was in were killed in the same blast. Terry Rodgers describes the explosion and its immediate aftermath in a very matter of fact style.

But the best part of the article is towards the end. At one point, when he was recuperating in the hospital, a nurse asked Rodgers if he wanted to meet President Bush, who was touring the facility.

And Rodgers' response? "I don't want anything to do with him," he explains. "My belief is that his ego is getting people killed and mutilated for no reason -- just his ego and his reputation. If we really wanted to, we could pull out of Iraq. Maybe not completely but enough that we wouldn't be losing people -- at least not at this rate. So I think he himself is responsible for quite a few American deaths."

That pretty well sums it up.

What's the deal with the American intelligence services? Not only did they come up with the harebrained idea that I had all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, which of course I didn't since I'm such pacifist. In fact, just between you, me and the law enforcement agencies now monitoring your web surfing because they caught you reading this site, I secretly became a Quaker a few years ago. Why do you think you never saw me running around in those long flowing white dresses like other Arab leaders?

Where was I...? Oh, right, intelligence failures!

Now a Congressman (a type of democratically elected person) says he has uncovered evidence that a secret military intelligence group in the United States learned in 1999 that Mohammad Atta--the Egyptian leader of the 9-11 hijackers--was a member of Al Qaeda. However, they decided NOT to tell the FBI about it. Apparently lawyers at the Pentagon decided that since Atta and his group were in the country legally, there was nothing to warn the FBI about.

That's it. When in doubt, blame the damn lawyers.

One of the ongoing criticisms of the American occupation of Iraq--militarily speaking--has been that the Americans need more soldiers to quell the insurgency. Bush and Rumsfeld, however, have repeatedly said that if any commanders on the ground in Iraq were to ask for more troops, the request would be given. They simply haven't asked, and that's because more troops aren't needed.

Now we learn that the unit of marines from Ohio that lost those 20 soldiers last week had, in fact, asked for another battalion of a thousand men. For some reason the request was not granted.

And people say I'm the one with the credibility problem....

Did you know that the west still has troops in Kosovo, which is located in the former Yugoslavia? I certainly didn't; I thought they were all over here occupying my country.

At any rate, it looks like those guys have W-A-A-A-Y too much time on their hands. They're even sitting around making music videos of old Beach Boys songs!

Have you heard about this new Al Qaeda tape? Ayman al-Zawahri, the group's number two guy, released it the other day and it's already soared to the top of the Billboard Hot 100 Terror Threats chart. Of course, with the advent of file sharing, that no longer translates into big sales the way it used to.

Anyway, al-Zawahri stopped short of claiming direct responsibility for the London bombings but did say that Tony Blair's decision to keep British troops in Iraq was the cause. He also went on to say that more attacks would be coming, both in the British Isles and America.

Personally I find that absolutely hilarious, though I suppose Brits and Americans fail to see the humor in it. But if you stop and think about it, wasn't the whole reason for Bush's invasion of Iraq to prevent terror, not inspire more of it? Do you see the irony of it all? That's what makes it so funny!

So what went wrong? Why is the world still such a scary place?

Oh, right. Instead of going after the terrorists, and trying to capture or kill the guy who murdered almost 3000 of his fellow Americans on September 11, Bush decided to invade Iraq instead.

That makes about as much damn sense as fixing a flat tire by changing the fan belt.

In the past I have mocked the Americans' so-called torture techniques as being amateurish. Then I read this.

It seems that one of my generals, Abed Hamed Mowhoush, was captured a couple of years ago. His interrogators worked him over pretty thoroughly with beatings but he refused to cooperate.

So on the morning of Nov. 26, 2003, two Americans soldiers stuffed him in a sleeping bag, bound it up with electrical cord, and beat him yet again.

Mowhoush ended up dying in that sleeping bag. The Americans initially said he died of natural causes, but now the truth has finally come out.

In the past, Rumsfeld and other Bush officials have justified the harsh questioning of prisoners by arguing that they are not soldiers, but terrorists and thugs and therefore exempt from the protections of the Geneva accords. Yet here we have someone who is clearly a top military officer with the enemy, and he was literally beaten to death! If my people had captured a top US general and subjected him to the same brutal treatment, and he had ended up dead, what do you suppose would be Bush's reaction?

Right. He'd be talking it up as further evidence of the savagery and brutality of the evildoers who hate freedom and democracy.

Anyway, I have to admit that I'm impressed. Stuffed in a sleeping bag and bound with electrical cable, eh? Very impressive.

I'll have to add that one to my own repertoire.

The United States' tendency to go poking its nose into other countries business has gotten it into trouble yet again. This time it's Uzbekistan, which is one of those countries Bush couldn't find on a map drunk or sober. Come to think of it, neither could I, but that's besides the point.

The Uzbek government recently conducted a bloody crackdown on some protestors, killing several hundred of them. The US, apparently forgetting what it has been doing at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, protested and has been pushing for an international inquiry into the deaths.

In response, the government of that small country, which just happens to border on Afghanistan, and has been allowing the nosy Americans to maintain a base essential to their ongoing operations in that country, has decided enough is enough and told the United States to pack up and get out.

Isn't this a bit like calling the cops because your landlord is having a loud party, then acting surprised when you find your crap out in the street the next morning?

Special thanks to reader Tung Yin (see also July 30), who has just supplied the perfect defense for my upcoming trial:

"If you can't find the poison gas, Saddam gets a free pass."

With a line like that, it doesn't matter what kind of facts, photos, exhibits, maps of wind currents, eyewitness accounts, or grieving family members the prosecution throws before the jury. All they're going to remember is the line "If you can't find the poison gas, Saddam gets a free pass."

It's the classic California style defense strategy: Let the prosecution bore the jury with evidence, then you dazzle them with poetry.