perfidy

The little parenthetical that followed "can't read" was intended to alter the meaning of that, to "doesn't read anything that's given to him". Of course Bush can read; you can't barely graduate from Yale without being able to read something. Unless it's a complicated something.

I get to be much more ridiculous in comment threads, don't I?

Methinks Steve doth protest too much.

Ask yourselves this: Bush is blaming the CIA for feeding him bad information about Iraq. He's also saying that those intelligence reports have been around for a long time, and they've stayed consistent. Fine -- let's assume that's true. Why, then, has Bush's response been so different to the same intelligence reports? Clinton, viewing, the exact same information, chooses to remain at arm's length from Iraq. Bush sets off to war. Bush has 9/11 looming large...but that's what Afghanistan was about.

Bush gets his information from an inner circle of advisors. He doesn't read the reports directly; he doesn't know what they say. It's highly probably that there was quite a bit of spin put on the information Bush got. The simplest explanation for the whole situation is that some of his closest advisors _didn't_ see justification in the intelligence reports, but were willing to bet that when we got there, we'd find the evidence.

The bet didn't pay off. Bush was betrayed by his advisors; they made a decision that's supposed to be made by a President, in full view of the facts. They made the decision because they screwed around with the facts they presented Bush.

Similarly, on the economy, Bush has been screwed by his advisors again. Three budget years in a row they've predicated rosiness, as far as the rosy eye could see. None of it has come to pass.

While economists agree that there is _some_ stimulus provided by tax cuts, the real question is, how much? On that question, there is massive disagreement. The vast majority of economists don't think there's all that much, and judging by the state of the economy, they're right.

The Bushies predicted invading Iraq would cost around $50 Billion, back before it happened. Looks like it's going to be north of $200 Billion at this point, when all is said and done. This leaves you with two choices. Either they are completely freakin' incompetent at estimates, or they were deliberately lowballing their estimate (otherwise known as telling lies to get what you want).

Bush's casual destruction of the finances of the federal government is truly the greatest security threat facing this country. It turns out that the $200 Billion is doing this war on the cheap; there are serious problems with supplies. In other words, it's gonna cost more in the future. The American government needs to be in a fiscal position to finance necessary actions around the world. Bush is screwing that up, massively. Of course, we could just print more money, right? That'll fix it.

Here's the biggest mistake you make. You presume that the tax cuts mean that people have "money in their pockets". That's just plain wrong. The tax cuts didn't go to you and me, my friend. They didn't go to the regular people in this country. The vast majority of those dollars went back into the pockets of people who don't need them. People who are already vigorously trying to get around the tax code, to avoid paying _any_ share, let alone a fair share. People who have armies of lawyers devoted to keeping everything they can.

Let's stop talking about taxpayers as if we're all in the same class, the same boat. We aren't. I won't say much more this point, except the following: When you look at the IRS statistics that show the rise in average constant dollars income over the past twenty years, they are highly deceptive. They're deceptive because they show the average, not the median. Everyone who knows anything about math knows that the very first thing you do when you want to lie with statistics or hide something is use averages instead of means. I won't say the IRS is deliberately doing this; they're not. Bush, on the other hand, has happily pushed "averages" at the American public, who presume that they can rely on it as a guide.

Every action Bush has taken has been rooted in one of the following: Making his rich buddies vastly richer with tax cuts, engaging in experimentation with neoconservative foreign policy, pandering to the (relatively) conservative base with wedge issues, and selling access to the donor class. Virtually every domestic policy initiative he has engaged in has been a failure.

Environment: Terrible. Disagrees with conclusions on global warming, climate change, and so forth. His response? Cut the funding for research. Chewed up and spit out Christie Todd Whitman, who went into the job as EPA administrator thinking that she'd have some impact on policy. All decisions were made before Bush even took office. Maybe God'll sort us all out in the Rapture.

Economy: Terrible. Has attempted "stimulation" with tax cuts. Negligible effects on the economy, and massive destruction to the federal budget. The long term prospects for the federal government are so bad, it will inhibit the us economy, particularly by scaring off foreign investors, who prop up the government's borrowing habits.

Foreign Policy: A necessary war in Afghanistan, and a stupid, wasteful one in Iraq. The entire world holds Bush (and to an extent America), in very low esteem at the moment. Nobody was fooled by the pre-war WMD crap, and it turns out that there was good reason not to be fooled. His current attempts to run away from the considered opinions of his own administration is embarrassing for the country.

Political Climate: More partisan and divisive and STUPID than it has ever been. The reason? This white house is not interested in discussions. The "smart guys" have already made the decisions. Having international embarrassments like Tom Delay in power doesn't help, either.

Most GOP attacks on the Democrats this fall will center on their "hate" for Bush. Whatever...it's not exactly misplaced, to the extent that it exists. The GOP will tell its base that Democrats therefore hate them, as well. The dirty secret is that there are Republicans out there who are honorable, who are fiscally conservative, and who adhere to principle. The crooks in the white house won't have anything to do with those guys.