corrente

Now the Bush Big Lies are coming unstuck. His faabulous gang members just can't seem to keep them glued together. The mainstream Baltimore Sun editorializes:

President Bush said Wednesday, flat out, that there's no evidence Saddam Hussein had anything to do with Sept. 11.

Now he tells us.

The president's defenders can of course correctly point out that Mr. Bush has never actually claimed otherwise. But there is such a thing as fostering an impression, and over the past year the White House has so assiduously invoked Sept. 11 whenever warning about Iraq's intentions, or crowing about Iraq's defeat, that no one could fail to grasp that there was an underlying message: American troops had to fight their way into Baghdad because American citizens perished in the attacks of two years ago.

American troops suffered more casualties outside Baghdad yesterday. And why are they there? Will the commander in chief come clean?

Why, then, and just now, would newly-minted candidate General Wesley Clark say that he would have voted for the war?

"On balance, I probably would have voted for it," Clark said. "The simple truth is this: When the president of the United States comes to you and makes the linkages and lays the power of the office on you, and you're in a crisis, the balance of the judgment probably goes to the president of the United States."

"Lays the power of the office on you"???

Even at that point, Bush had a track record for lying. And Clark says he will substitute Bush's "judgment" for his own? When Bush comes back from an August vaction and decides to manufacture a "crisis"?

This reminds me of George "Brainwashed" Romney back in 1968. Who wants a President who can be brainwashed?

What's up with that? I don't agree with the Horse on General Clark's "Winning Strategy," unfortunately.