As we switch to the general, take note of conversations you'll have with your friends, family and colleagues. The 'Bush is a no-good lying bastard' concept well familiar to us doesn't play as well with the folks Out There. What does?
Josh Marshall links to an unusually insightful piece from Wm Saletin in Slate. No over the top stuff, but the truth is often as simple as our President.
Doesn't matter whether it's the tin ear for his 9/11 ads, tax cuts to cure all, or WMD in Iraq. Bush is a hammer, and thinks the rest of the world is a nail.
In recent months, congressional hearings and document leaks have unearthed a disturbing history. Again and again in 2001 and 2002, U.S. intelligence agencies sent signals that Bush was wrong. The FBI and CIA debunked putative links between Iraq and al-Qaida. The CIA rejected the claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa. In its National Intelligence Estimate, the CIA calculated that it could take Saddam up to five years to make a nuclear weapon and that he would transfer WMD to terrorists only if he were invaded. The Defense Intelligence Agency advised the administration that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons." The Air Force disputed the suggestion that Iraq had developed aerial drones capable of delivering chemical or biological toxins. Analysts questioned whether the White House was right that Saddam's aluminum tubes were designed for building nukes, or that two trucks the White House found suspicious were designed for making biological weapons.
Bush ignored every one of these warnings. They couldn't be true, because they didn't fit his theory. He couldn't stand the complexity of the facts or the ambiguity of intelligence. "Until we get rid of Saddam Hussein, we won't get rid of uncertainty," he told aides in November 2002. Four months later, on the eve of his invasion of Iraq, he declared, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." After the war, when Diane Sawyer asked Bush about the discrepancy between his ironclad statements and the more tentative weapons estimates provided by U.S. intelligence, he replied, "What's the difference?"
That's Bush all over: Certainty. No doubt. No difference. But it makes a difference to Britain, France, and Mexico, which no longer trust our requests, based on U.S. intelligence, to cancel flights to the United States. And it makes a difference to China, which refuses to accept our report, based on U.S. intelligence, that North Korea is operating a highly enriched uranium program. Bush's overconfidence--reflected in a series of exaggerations wholly unnecessary to the punishment of Saddam for his noncompliance with U.N. inspections--has trashed our credibility and cost us vital help with other terrorist and WMD-related threats.
Now take any instance where you disagree, such as his ad disrespecting the remains of a 9/11 victim, and watch him try to make nails out of the firemen, the families of the victims, etc. Same approach he took to the David Kay report... I'm right and ignore the facts.
Even a moderate can understand the difference between 'steady leadership' and 'stubborn' ignoring of facts.
To quote Marshal:
A more devilish way to put this might be to say that President Bush and his team have given a new turn to John Maynard Keynes famous response when challenged for changing his opinions so often.
Quipped Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"
For the Bush White House, when the facts change, you just change them back again. Why get distracted?
Watch Junior take this approach at every opportunity. It's the only method he understands.
Bush is a hammer and thinks the world is a nail. Kerry is the complete toolbox.