While cruising around at FARK.com I came across a link to a MSNBC.com column by Eleanor Clift titled: Not the Un-Clinton After All. In it she points out that Bush really isn’t all that different than Clinton in terms of honesty or willingness to flip-flop on issues, but that the general public doesn’t really notice because most folks think he’s an idiot anyway and the media doesn’t want to mess up a good story.
But it’s not true that Bush is a man of his word. He has shimmied and shifted in lots of areas, including Iraq, manipulating language the way Clinton did and exaggerating in the same way that he once pilloried Gore for doing. Bush says “regime change” doesn’t have to mean deposing Saddam Hussein—that the regime would be changed if Saddam disarmed. This is rhetoric worthy of Clinton, and it doesn’t mean that Bush has altered fundamentally his commitment to displace Saddam through military force.
Even though there is no credible evidence linking the Iraqi president to the 9-11 attacks, Bush persists in suggesting on the campaign trail that Saddam might use Al Qaeda as his “forward army.” Polls show that two thirds of Americans believe Saddam was behind 9-11, a useful myth irresponsibly fed by Bush. The president said in a speech last month that Saddam is experimenting with unmanned drones capable of reaching the United States with weapons of mass destruction. When confronted with the geographical improbability of such a feat, a White House spokesman countered that the drones could be launched from ships. Unless Iraq has an aircraft carrier we dont know about, that scenario is equally implausible.
It doesn’t help that most Americans are, pretty much, total idiots themselves. Perhaps that’s the secret to Bush’s popularity? The idea that the great idiotic masses finally have “one of their own” running the show?