I just tuned into CNN for several minutes. Why do I keep doing this? I guess I hope to get an update on the status of the war, but inevitably I end up hearing interviews with people uninvolved in the situation.

First, I was treated to a segment entitled "Insight from India", where they interviewed a man who claimed to have trained Saddam's troops. He said he had met Saddam twice, and had a signed poster of him to prove it. He predicted eventual wins for the coalition, but only after weeks of fighting. If what he said didn't sound dire, the "unbiased" anchor then capped the piece by saying "... predicting the nightmare scenario feared by some U.S. officials." Really? Which ones? The mayor of San Franciso? I hate it when 'journalists' cite (hallucinate?) unnamed sources; its sooo much more shallow then the 'talking head' does it as filler.

Ah yes, a mercenary from India who has a poster of Saddam gives 'insight' into the oncoming 'nightmare scenario'. Message received, CNN.

Thankfully, CNN soon 'balanced' this negative coverage with more negative coverage: a softball interview with 'human shield' Mark Cahill. Mr. Cahill said he had an anger towards the U.S. government which has been growing for the last twenty years. (Apparently, the "good years" must have ended -- for him, anyway -- when Carter left office.) All the shield-guarded sites, he said, including 'his' water treatement plant, had been preserved. In other cities, he claimed, such facilities were destroyed by the allies.

Regarding Iraq, and atrocities there: "I don't know that much about Saddam Hussein..." (Are we surprised, dear reader?) "I didn't see any evidence of a dictatorship except a lot of soldiers and pictures of Saddam Hussein." (Well, what did he expect? A big plaque in the airport saying: "Welcome to a dictatorship!" ?) Wolf Blitzer asked if he thought Iraq would be better off without Saddam Hussein. He replied, angrily, "No I don't!"

I don't believe in name-calling, dear reader, but it has been really, really hard to not employ the term 'useful idiot' in this context. (In fact, I just failed.)

Who goes into a country to act in a political capacity, while not knowing much about the leadership of that country? A human shield, apparently. He's very, very angry at the U.S. government, but thinks Saddam is better for Iraq than any other alternative.

Perhaps he thinks we should put Saddam in charge here also?