Ha ha! Of course he will, and you know he will because he said he won't. From an interview on 2003.03.18:

"Here's, here's the bottom line on this for every American and everybody in the world, nobody knows for sure, all right? We don't know what he has. We think he has 8,500 liters of anthrax. But let's see. But there's a doubt on both sides. And I said on my program, if, if the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right? But I'm giving my government the benefit of the doubt. . . .

". . . if he has 8,500 liters of anthrax that he's not going to give up, even though the United Nations demanded that he do that, we are doing the right thing. If he doesn't have any weapons, then we are doing the wrong thing. So, we'll see."

Guess how many of O'Reilly's conservative, "your word is your bond," "we only say what we mean" buddies are going to hold him to this? Guess whether or not Ol' Bill really feels burned by the fact that there are no weapons of mass destruction anywhere President Bush said there were?

Apparently, being a hypocrite is only a sin if you're not conservative, too. I'm really, really tempted to start a "political hypocrisy" department just for this kind of stuff in the hopes that I can find more from all sides of the spectrum. I'm tired of only seeing it on one side.

I don't read Thomas Friedman, but Matt Tabibi's dissection of his writing style in the New York Press nearly had me falling out of my chair laughing.

The hallmark of the Friedman method is a single metaphor, stretched to column length, that makes no objective sense at all and is layered with other metaphors that make still less sense. The result is a giant, gnarled mass of incoherent imagery.

I can only aspire to this. I've only got the single nonsensical metaphor; I haven't yet learned how to layer on the even more nonsensical metaphors.