WHO IS THE "STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR?"

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?

"Ahmadinejad's trip to New York ignited a debate this week over his rejected request to lay a wreath at ground zero. The State Department calls Iran a state sponsor of terror, and politicians and families of Sept. 11 victims were outraged that its president might visit the site of the 2001 terror attacks."

The United States is the biggest "state sponsor of terror." Our invasion of Iraq has now killed over 1,000,000 people. That's 1/25 of the population of Iraq. And that's just for starters. We overthrew Mossadegh in 1953 through the use of terror attacks and we're still doing that today:

"As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan 'tri-border region.'"

In other words, we're sponsoring terror. Here's some more about our sponsorship of terrorism:

"TEHRAN, Feb. 17 (Xinhua) -- Explosive devices and arsenals used in a terrorist attack in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan on Wednesday came from the United States, the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Saturday.

Relevant documents, photographs and film footage, which show that the explosives and arsenals used in the attack were American, would soon be made public, an "informed source" was quoted as saying.

The source further pointed out that Jundallah, a shadowy Sunni militant group, had several plots for assassinating Sunni and tribal leaders to sow discord and foment conflicts between the Shiite and Sunni citizens in Sistan-Baluchestan province."

We're not the good guys. In fact, there are no good guys--only varying degrees of bad guys. Seriously, is that how one "fights terror?" By engaging in it?

AT LEAST SOMEONE IN BOSTON LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS SOME SENSE

So the Aqua Teen saga continues. This is just too much:

"I cannot state strongly enough the seriousness of this offense," District Attorney Daniel Conley said in the Boston Herald.

What's the offense? Advertising? Good marketing?

Thankfully the judge seems to have a good head on his shoulders:

The artists' biggest ally might be their judge, who "seemed skeptical of the state's case," in the words of the Boston Globe, and reminded prosecutors that they'd have to prove Berdovsky and Stevens intended to cause a panic.

Yeah, it's going to be really hard to prove that, since these ads were in 8 other cities and didn't cause a panic and these guys were working for a legitimate ad agency. I mean, 9/11 shouldn't be allowed to change the laws of common sense. I mean, changing the Constitution, I understand, but this is ridiculous--KIDDING!

And by the way, I hope the ad agency these guys were working for doesn't try to hang them out to dry--I'd be surprised if they what they did is actually illegal. And Turner Broadcasting needs to step up too and pay for these guys' defense. After all, TBS is still getting quite a lot of publicity bang for their buck.