All that have posted so far and pointed out that Bush has made a mess of the history of Vietnam and Cambodia are right...but it is not the point, I suspect.

The words Bush uttered were not written by him; they were provided by his speech writers who were undoubtedly directed to use Vietnam as an example of why we should stay in Iraq. So why would the writers choose to distort history so? I think it's because they assume most Americans (especially those born after the Vietnam war) don't really know the history. So they can twist it at will without fear of being contradicted. And of course they don't have any expectation that the media will seriously call them out on it.

Sure there will be an intelligent, educated fraction of the nation that will see Bush's distortions in the speech for what they are, but those aren't the folks he's trying to reach anyway. I mean, really, what's that chance that any of us are likely to accept any analysis by the President at face value?

Excellent article. Not least because it points out the one glaring contradition that I've yet to see any other news or opinion piece cover. Freedom's Watch claims to be grassroots driven when it is, in fact, bank rolled by wealthy right wingers and not a large number of middle class citizens.

Joe did what every other reporter that has covered this story should have done - check the facts and call them on their cockamamie backstory.

My, but we do have some fine mathematicians leading our military and diplomatic groups. Geometry from the general; trigonometry from the ambassador. All we're missing is calculus.

Since these guys seem to delight in using idiotic mathematical metaphors rather than speaking in plan English about the situation in Iraq and its prospects, I say we call their bluff and ask them to give us the equations--complete with explanations of the variables and their relationships--and then work the proofs for them. Or better yet, demonstrate how the equations will "win" the war in Iraq. That would be a nice way to call them out on their obfuscation and deception.

Never let it be said that George Bush and his administration don't have the ability to laugh at themselves. This has to be one of the most pointed bits of self-deprecating humor I've seen in a long time.

Oh, you say they were serious. Boy, talk about psychological projection.

That's one hell of a database they must have. If I had a database that was no better than a random number generator when I gave it the same query repeatedly, I'd withhold payment for it and demand some accountability from its creators/purveyors.

Leaving aside the 30% that support Bush no matter what he says or does, how can anyone spout this nonsense without being too embarrased to show themselves in public afterwards?

In the heady days of the late 60s and early 70s, when civil rights was blossoming into the early gay rights and women's rights movements, some argued/hoped that granting full and equal rights and access to women in areas that had previously been primarily the province of men would transform institutions for the better. The idea was that women would bring "feminine" traits into institutions that had previously been characterized by a kind of hypermasculinity. Women were supposed to make the institutions more human and humane because the institutions would become a more balanced reflection of desirable masculine and feminine qualities. At the time, a small number of us were concerned that the power balance in the institutions would overwhelm the small number of women in positions of power and instead cause the women to simply be more masculine in their behavior.

The case of Ms. Perino is not a perfect test case, but, even so, her willingness to lie and be a water carrier for the Bush administration is a clear example that women are no less capable of perpetuating bad institutional habits and that their presence in institutions need not make them any better. Otherwise, she could never bring herself to say that paying for the war by raising taxes is some sort of an inherited moral failing in Democrats.

I simply cannot understand how these people, male or female, can live with themselves when they utter such trash. They are proof that a human can justify almost anything (lying, torture, violation of habeas corpus, etc.) to themselves if the circumstances are right (enough money or power, a particular ideology, etc.)

Bush utters more tautological statements (A = A) as pseudo-explanations for his actions than any person in power in memory. When our decider decides, does our explainer-in-chief really believe his explanations explain his decisions? Somebody should create a Bush dictionary. All of the words will be defined by self-reference, allowing everything and nothing to be explained and understood simultaneously.

Lord, does this man have any idea how stupid he appears when he is so stupid?