Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, February 6, 2004

To skeptics, the Bush administration appears to be conducting a bold political experiment: government by illusion. The wonder is how they get away with it.

In my experience, you can catch a clever horse twice with an empty feed bucket. Then the animal quits trusting you. By now, the White House chicanery has grown so brazen that one would expect the even less independent-minded grazing animals - such as dairy cows and GOP "team leaders" - to suspect that they are being had. Last week, Bush delivered himself of yet another thunderous whopper on the subject of Iraq.

During a press conference with the president of Poland, Bush was asked about the congressional testimony of David Kay, the recently resigned leader of his Iraq Survey Team. After spending several months and millions of tax dollars in a futile quest, Kay concluded that Saddam Hussein had no "weapons of mass destruction," hence no means whatsoever of posing a military threat to the United States. America's first pre-emptive war was like a bad drug bust where the cops smash through the wrong door.

"We were almost all wrong," the hawkish Kay confessed, thereby signaling his unfitness to remain in the Bush administration. As a matter of policy, this White House admits no error. Mere reality can be an impediment to greatness. Asked if he owed Americans an explanation, the president resorted to fantasy.

"First of all" Bush said "... I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions ... that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."

This is the rough equivalent of Bill Clinton denying he'd ever met Monica Lewinsky. In fact, UNMOVIC arms inspectors under the much-derided Swedish diplomat Hans Blix spent months chasing down one bogus U.S. hot tip after another. Reversing his vow to force a vote in the U.N. Security Council, Bush instead ordered the inspectors out of Baghdad, then began bombing. The president made the same absurd claim in an appearance with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan last July.

So take your pick. Either Bush has forgotten how the Iraq war started, or he thinks voters have. The nation's most important newspapers and broadcast networks have mostly given him a pass. Hardly anybody but Salon's Joe Conason appeared to notice.

As long as Bush doesn't misrepresent something truly significant, like playing slap and tickle with a 22-year-old intern, nobody wants to diminish respect for the presidency. After all, there's a war on.

Only days later, the White House yielded to political reality. Even post-9/11, enough people were concerned, or pretended to be concerned that U.S. intelligence had vastly overstated the Iraqi "threat" that Bush promised to sign an executive order appointing a bipartisan commission to find out why. Almost needless to say, it won't report until after the 2004 election.

Remember all those news stories about Donald Rumsfeld's "Office of Special Plans," and Vice President Cheney's visits to CIA headquarters to whip foot-dragging bureaucrats into line with the administration's hardline views? No? Good, because you're not supposed to.

Republican pundits who in 2003 scolded the intelligence community as soft on Saddam now claim that the sleuths' false certitude misled a trusting President Bush. Caught comically out of step was American Enterprise Institute "scholar" Laurie Mylroie, whose book "Bush vs. the Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror" (Regan Books, 2003) was published last July.

Remember the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States? The president appointed that one after the White House's claims that it had "no warning" of the 9/11 attacks were proven false.

For months, the administration balked at letting the commission read the "President's Daily Briefing" for Aug. 6, 2001 - the day Bush was warned of possible Al Qaeda airline hijackings and seemingly did nothing. After compromising to avoid a subpoena, the White House now says four commission members who read the document can't have their own notes. It also objects to extending the commission's May deadline while the dispute's being settled.

Domestically, honest conservatives are dismayed to learn that the administration deliberately underestimated the cost of new Medicare drug benefits by $135 billion to win passage. Even congressional Republicans are openly scornful of the White House's latest "Alice in Wonderland" budget estimates. "It is all fantasy," a GOP staffer told the L.A. Times.

Even Bush's lost months in the Texas Air National Guard back in 1972-3 are getting a skeptical look by journalists who bought his half-baked evasions in 2000.

How much does it matter today? Not much. By last week, empty feed buckets were pretty much all the Bush administration had to offer.

The White House did lie repeatedly and predictably. That would be the Clinton White House. Lying was their stock and trade.

The Bush White House doesn't lie. They've cleaned up the Clinton mess and have made incredible forward progress. GW has some major accomplishments in his first term (Afghanistan, Iraq, Al Queda) whereas his predecessor had none.

We've evaluated Bush Admirer's IQ and have determined that he is far below moron: 20.

He's like that ridiculous Iraqi propaganda dude before the invasion, showing up on TV in military garb announcing Iraqi's Army great victories as US troops surrounded Baghdad.

With Bush Admirer, IMC has now its own delusional clown. He's truly amusing; I really enjoy his "follow-the party-line" spoutings, always using the same "it is so because I say so" style.
Although he's capable of some pertinent points, the guy is truly gifted when it comes to ignoring reality. Don't know what his secret is to be pemanently flying high as a kite. I would love to see him on Fox "news" (right before the Simpsons, it would make a fine introduction).

Wish you well Admirer, you really should consider a carreer in show-business. I'll be among your first admirers.

>>PhD, Psych. said: "We've evaluated Bush Admirer's IQ and have determined that he is far below moron: 20."

Thanks PhD. The University of Santa Clara will be disappointed to learn that they've awarded an MBA to someone with an IQ below 20. My undergrad college will be amazed to learn that the guy who graduated Summa Cum Laude and first in his class was a moron. And my employees will be similarly disappointed to learn that their leader who they've been following for years is a moron.

>>Admirer of Bush Admirer said, "With Bush Admirer, IMC has now its own delusional clown. He's truly amusing; I really enjoy his "follow-the party-line" spoutings, always using the same "it is so because I say so" style."

I'm pleased to add you to my fan club Admirer. I'm afraid, however, that you've confused me with Flux Rostrum, Sheepdog, Meyer London and several other 'delusional clowns' who post here regularly.

I simply observe and comment on the facts. For example: GW Bush and his administration have made remarkable progress with the war on terror. The progress in Afghanistan, Iraq, and with Al Queda has been very positive and truly remarkable. There is nothing delusional in those obviously factual observations.

It's also a simple observation to note that the Clinton Administration didn't accomplish anything in eight long and painful years. There is nothing delusional to simply observe that obvious fact.

Where the "delusional clown" label really fits would be with a poster who makes any of the folowing claims:

1/ That Bush is a fascist
2/ That the US Government was somehow involved in 9/11 as a conspiracy
3/ That the terrorists who flew the planes on 9/11 were not Al Queda Muslim fanatics
4/ That Dennis Kucinich is a legitimatge and viable Presidential candidate.
5/ That the grocery strikers are on the right side of the issue.
6/ That Socialism is anything more than a failed experiment and a relic of history.

How someone who learned to type could be such an idiot without a clue to reality,
Why are you posting here and not in your own sand box in Texass?

Didn't know that there was someone out there who wanted to Lick Bush.

Apparently that would be you.

So you never have tried it huh?
You must be one ugly fat unwanted moron. No wonder you are so screwed up.

Hate to be the one to break the news to you Licker, but you are one ugly baby.

Apparently your mother didn't want to be the one to break the bad news to you.

I'm not the least bit screwed up, but you certainly are.

There is nothing more pathetic than a leftist with serious delusions of adequacy.

"IMC has now its own delusional clown"

Did someone say chemtrails or remote controlled planes on 9-11?

Surely you speak of sheepdog.

The grocery strikers are on the right side of the issue.

We're at a point where the service ector economy outpaces the manufacturing sector's, and the labor rates and work conditions for service are being reevaluated. We're hammering out the question: "what is the value of service?"

(Likewise, we're fighting over the value of intellectual property, and the meaning of intellectual property. That's a related, similar fight.)

In the past the wages for service were thought to be minimum wage or below, if the work involved food, was minimially skilled, and so forth. Wages for skilled service work were higher, and doctors and lawyers made a lot of money. Somewhere in between, waiters working at expensive restaurants, and hair stylists made a middling wage between the two.

The problems with the current system are obvious. Service workers forced into low-wage situation, or factory-like work conditions, will provide bad service. Because good service cannot be quantified easily, it cannot be negotiated in or out of a labor contract.

Moreover, if a fast growing sector of the economy produces mainly low-wage jobs, the effect on society will be a decline in affluence.

The fairly widespread support of this strike demonstrates that people value service, and identify with the service workers. The fact that they shopped at these relatively expensive chains in the first place is also a sign that they value service.