QUESTION: Second question. You have admitted that Saddam may attack our invading troops with chemical and biological weapons. On Sunday, 60 Minutes reported that many military leaders believe that our troops have neither the proper equipment, nor the proper training to survive a chemical and biological attack. The report quoted an Army audit that found that 62 percent of the gas masks examined "had critical defects that could cause leakage." Now, since 100,000 U.S. veterans in the Gulf War may still be suffering from Gulf War Syndrome -- many of them believe that this is from inhaling toxic fumes. Tens of thousands of them were exposed to sarin gas when we bombed a Iraqi munitions dump -- how can the President send troops into harm's way knowing that they are not adequately protected from a chemical and biological attack?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President has full faith and confidence in the Department of Defense and in their planning for the worst. And I think premised in your question is the fact that perhaps you now are coming around to the realization that Iraq does indeed have weapons of mass destruction and a willingness to use them. It's not anybody in the United States government who has admitted -- in your word -- that Iraq might use these weapons; it's that Iraq has such weapons, they've used them in the past. And hence the danger not only to the troops who are in the region, but to people abroad, people in the United States, and friends and allies and civilians in the region who remain vulnerable to Saddam using such weapons on innocents.

I can't put my finger on it. Wait, is it...is it.... Oh right, coherence.

The Iraqis have WMD and a willingness to use them, we have defective equipment, and there are five million civilians in Baghdad. And so the answer is to invade Iraq. Is there any question in which Ari will not find a justification for invading Iraq?

“Webster’s dictionary defines [liberalism] as ‘a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties….’ I believe the most practical and hopeful compass by which to guide the American ship of state is the philosophy of liberalism. Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiative taken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, just to name a few.”

Based on a mission statement of this sort, the Democratic Party should follow it up with a clear vision based on the values of the mission, policy area by policy area, making the case in each one that the progress of society depends on the belief of the essential goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual. I’d like to expand on these issues to include a broad range of policy areas. By way of example, though, here are two:

Foreign Policy
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has moved from a world of democratic-socialist detente and entered a era of multilateral interdependence. It is a hopeful era in geopolitics, for it offers the possibility of international cooperation based on world good rather than national interest. But it is also a dangerous time, underscored so clearly by the attacks of 9/11. The old system of national might is no longer useful in this chaotic new world. The United States should set the example to the world that democracy is the hope not just of nations, but of the world. It should seek to strengthen international cooperation and dialogue, working through cooperative bodies like NATO and the UN. It can ensure it’s own safety only through the recognition that while any nation is unsafe, all nations are unsafe. This is not an issue of national interest, it is the world’s interest.

To that end, foreign policy should emphasize cooperation. The US should also tailor policy that will encourage stability: recognizing that chaos, poverty, and instability is a breeding ground for violence, it should support efforts to reduce those elements and encourage broader freedoms. The Democratic Party will sponsor initiatives to aid foreign countries by: offering direct aid; offering incentives to encourage partnerships between foreign and domestic corporations; supporting international agreements to aid foreign countries; take the lead in resolving the crisis in Israel; encourage international trade agreements that benefit the economies of foreign countries.

The Environment
It is the right of every American to have clean air and water. Furthermore, it is the duty of this country to protect its natural resources for our immediate benefit and for the benefit of future generations. Ample scientific data exist to inform many environmental policies; the Democratic Party will rely first on these data in determining policy. The Democratic Party will also seek to build bridges between natural partners in land-management issues: environmentalists, ecologists, sportsmen, farmers, and ranchers.

With regard to current environmental issues, the Democratic Party supports: strengthening the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Air and Water Acts; immediate adoption of the Kyoto accords; protection of forest land, including setting aside ancient forests and prohibiting commercial logging on national forest land, but also encouraging the healthy harvest of timber through incentives; continued support of the Endangered Species Act. The Democratic Party opposes drilling in ANWR.

Furthermore, recognizing that sustainability is the only sound course to preserve our natural resources, the Democratic Party will propose legislation to: fund development of alternative-fuel technology; fund further research and development of reusable resources, recycling, and alternative energy. This funding could be creative use of public/private partnerships, which would have the ultimate benefit of creating new technologies and new industries, positioning the United States to take the lead and reap the benefit.


These are just suggestions, of course. They’re off-the-top-of-my head ideas. Certainly there are bigger brains out there who’ve devoted far more thought to this. It’s a dialogue that’s long overdue, and it’s a dialogue that must happen if the Democratic Party is ever to regain relevance in national policymaking.

In reporting on Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation to the United Nations Security Council, many journalists treated allegations made by Powell as though they were facts. Reporters at several major outlets neglected to observe the journalistic rule of prefacing unverified assertions with words like "claimed" or "alleged."

This is of particular concern given that over the last several months, many Bush administration claims about alleged Iraqi weapons facilities have failed to hold up to inspection. In many cases, the failed claims-- like Powell's claims at the U.N.-- have cited U.S. and British intelligence sources and have included satellite photos as evidence.

Catching the administration in a lie has become sort of a parlor game for liberals. So if you missed the report, you can impress your friends with some of the new ones FAIR uncovered. (Go to the article for specifics.)

FAIR has another report that reiterates Colin Powell's somewhat checkered history with the truth. It is noteworthy to mention these facts (which include arms shipments during Iran-Contra, civilian killings in Nicaragua, and the Panama invasion) because the main reason Powell was selected to float the US claims was because of his credibility. The Bush administration felt it needed someone who was pretty much untouchable in the media so that tricky questions about the claims wouldn't be asked. (A fun game is to imagine Rumsfeld behind the mic, presenting the same "evidence." Doesn't seem quite as credible, does it?)

"One measure would create a program to allow the timber industry to harvest prime trees in exchange for their help in managing the forests. Others focus on the Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska, the largest national forest and the one with the most undeveloped land.

"Both the Tongass and the Chugach National Forest, also in Alaska, would be exempted from a nationwide policy banning road building in undeveloped national forest areas. The Forest Service would have to let the industry cut enough timber sales in the Tongass to satisfy market demand. And the forest management plan would be sheltered from legal challenges.

"Together these efforts are designed to provide a steady supply of old-growth trees from the Tongass without interruptions that have become common as a result of lawsuits filed by environmental groups.

It sounds like horrible public policy--designed to benefit timber industry executives in the short run at the expense of forests and the logging industry. There's nothing in the provision that encourages timber companies to develop sustainable harvest techniques, nor money that could be used to convert mills to harvesting second growth.

It's a slimy enough maneuver that even a group of Republicans said it "would seriously undermine the legislative process to add new provisions behind closed doors and at the very last minute to a must-pass spending bill that is already four months old."

(As an aside, a troubling pattern in journalism is to cite "environmentalists" as a kind of collective, often without attributing a single quote to a particular group. Environmentalists span the range from the pro-violence Earth Liberation Front to Sport-Ute drivin Sierra Clubbers. This article eventually cites two sources, but it's late in the article. As part of their agenda in the language wars, Republicans have successfully demonized the word "environmentalists." Journalists should hold themselves to a higher standard here and not paint all opponents of radical, rape-the-forests legislation with the same brush.)

“This country is blessed with virtually millions of good-hearted volunteers who work daily miracles in the lives of their fellow citizens. And today I ask our religious broadcasters, those who reach into every corner of America, to rally the armies of compassion so that we can change America one heart, one soul at a time.”

That was Preacher George yesterday, mustering the troops. It was a speech the White House innocuously labeled “President Bush Discussess Faith-Based Initiative in Tennessee,” delivered at the ecumenical-sounding National Religious Broadcasters convention. It was neither an innocuous speech nor an ecumnenical group: you had to look no further than the “Advancing Christian Communications” backdrop behind Preacher George to understand the audience.

If the State of the Union address introduced the Preacher to the world, this speech clarified his intention. It was less a political speech than it was an assurance that religion had finally been institutionalized as politics. Think I’m going too far here? Listen:

“The American people have deep and diverse religious beliefs, truly one of the great strengths of our country. And the faith of our citizens is seeing us through some demanding times. We're being challenged. We're meeting those challenges because of our faith.”

The country is able to meet its challenges how? Through its constitutional democracy and laws? No. “We’re meeting those challenges because of our faith.” The President appears to be a deeply religious man, and he does not see a distinction between the goodness of religious belief and the goodness of a strong government. It’s a theme he repeated throughout the speech. More:

“Government, of course, must be involved and will be involved. We just reformed our welfare in America and we've helped a lot of people. Yet, even as we work to improve the welfare laws, we know that welfare policy will not solve the deepest problems of the spirit.”

“I welcome faith. I welcome faith to help solve the nation's deepest problems.”

After the last sentence, Bush paused to tip his hat to the constitution: “I understand there's a -- that government must not and will not endorse a religious creed, or directly fund religious worship. That's obviously not a role of government, and that's not what we're talking about here.”

But he apparently does not understand this, because a few paragraphs later, he said:

“I continue to work with members of Congress of both political parties to enact faith-based legislation to encourage more charitable giving, so we're more likely able to rally the armies of compassion.”

And a little later:

“As well, I am concerned about those who are addicted to drugs, who fight for their very lives and survival against addiction. I believe that we can take a approach that focuses on the addict, give that person a voucher to be redeemed at any program that he or she chooses. Especially those programs that have got the capacity to change heart and, therefore, change habit.”

What he’s saying here is that it’s not really effective for government to meet the needs of citizens. “Compassion” in this case is more than simple material aid: it’s the Christian compassion that can “change heart and, therefore, change habit.” So even while his new budget cuts programs to the poor, he wishes to transfer these to “faith-based” providers. Why? Because the President isn’t paying lip service to his faith: he believes the only way to affect change is through religious ministration.

But that’s not all. Oh my, no. If this speech characterized Preacher George as a compassionate benefactor, it also showed his vengeful side as well.

“As I said in my State of the Union, liberty is not America's gift to the world. Liberty is God's gift to every human being in the world. America has great challenges; challenges at home and challenges abroad. We're called to extend the promise of this country into the lives of every citizen who lives here. We're called to defend our nation and to lead the world to peace, and we will meet both challenges with courage and with confidence.”

George W. Bush, the leader of the US, calls upon himself to defend the nation and lead the world to peace. He does not believe liberty is the US’s gift—it is God’s gift. America is just the enforcer of this truth. For the President, this is the mission statement. Thus, the real reason we have the pre-emption doctrine is revealed:

“If war is forced upon us -- and I say "forced upon us," because use of the military is not my first choice. I hug the mothers and the widows of those who may have lost their life in the name of peace and freedom. I take my responsibilities incredibly seriously about the commitment of troops. . . . We will try in every way we can to spare innocent life. The people of Iraq are not our enemies.”

Onward Christian soldier. Let them know of your compassion. Let them see the bright, violent light of your goodness. Clear away the evil, restore the purity:

“America views the Iraqi people as human beings who have suffered long enough under this tyrant. And the Iraqi people can be certain of this: the United States is committed to helping them build a better future. If conflict occurs, we'll bring Iraq food and medicine and supplies and, most importantly, freedom.”

This was an alarming speech. We’re not going to hear much about it because, for one, most Americans are Christian. Those who aren’t (particularly those in the media) will dismiss it as rhetoric. But it’s far from rhetoric: it’s a worldview that dictates who receives beneficence, and who receives wrath. We’re about to go to war not because war is justified but because the President of the United States regards Saddam Hussein as evil.

"While all the papers praised Powell's performance, the speech's impact on their editorials was marginal at best. Only the Arizona Republic in Phoenix and the Oregonian in Portland moved significantly in the pro-war direction. The other papers that became somewhat more supportive after Powell spoke were USA Today, Newark Star-Ledger, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, San Diego Union-Tribune, and the Detroit Free Press."

Don’t let that “marginal impact” language fool you: only two of the 25 papers the Institute surveyed were strongly anti-war (the NY Times and the The Register of Orange County). Which means, if you’re keeping track, that papers like Washington Post and Chicago Sun-Times (ain’t that the liberal one?) were pro-war.

Further proof that the liberal media has the nation cowed and whinging from underneath its commie hammerlock.

“Although financial reporters have started to realize that Mr. Bush is out of control — he has "lost his marbles," says CBS Market Watch — the sheer banana-republic irresponsibility of his plans hasn't been widely appreciated. ”

And thank God it is.

As a result of Rumsfeld's visit, the state interior minister of Bavaria, Günther Beckstein, said he feared that "outbreaks of extreme violence" could occur. To prevent such battles, Munich police have assembled a force of 3,500 officers, including some from other German states. They have also closed off the area around the hotel Bayerischer Hof where the conference is being held.

| link |

Even while Munich boiled, I was reading some nice analysis about the White House’s swagger syndrome in the New Yorker on the bus this morning. It’s a long quote, but makes a nice bookend to the Rumsfeld bumble:

The President's swagger is the sort of thing that Europeans, especially "old" Europeans, have in mind when they grumble that our President is a callow cowboy. But the difficulty goes beyond the personality of George W. Bush. One cannot spend time in any of the other developed democracies without being struck by the damage the Administration's wise-guy unilateralism has done, not only on the issue of Iraq but also on strategically marginal topics like the Kyoto environmental agreement, family planning, and the International Criminal Court. Everyone expected this pattern to change after the attacks of September 11, 2001. It didn't. The opportunity presented by Europe's instinctive solidarity—epitomized by NATO's decision to invoke, for the first time ever, the provision of its charter declaring that an attack against one is an attack against all—has been wasted. It's only natural that Europe, absorbed in creating a continental order based on nonviolent shared sovereignty, and the United States, whose unmatched military power confers unmatched responsibility, should view the world differently. Some degree of American unilateralism is inescapable. But this Administration seldom bothers to observe the minimal decencies.

| link |

“I heard no new evidence today from Secretary Powell’s address to the United Nations, that would convince me that military action in Iraq is necessary to improve security of Americans.

“Americans want the President to lay a clear case for immediate military action in Iraq, but the Administration’s message keeps changing--six months ago, their case hinged on regime change, three months ago it was Saddam thwarting inspections, three weeks ago it was possible possession of chemical weapons, today its tenuous terrorist links. If the case was clear, it would have been clear from day one.

“Our nation’s immediate threat is still Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorist network. We have full knowledge of North Korea’s equally rapidly developing nuclear weapons program under the control of an equally diabolical leader. There’s well-published accounts of several Mid-east governments aiding and funding known terrorists. Of America’s imminent threats, Saddam Hussein is much lower on the list.

“Saddam Hussein is a brutal untrustworthy tyrant, but he is being contained, and we should allow weapons inspectors to continue their work.

“The President seeks war, this is clear. The Constitution grants the Congress sole authority to declare war, and I believe the President should come before Congress to seek that authority. Our resolution allows him that option.”

| link |

Peter DeFazio is far, far too left for most Americans, but those of us in Oregon who have seen him lead would LOVE to see a candidate like him on the ticket in 2004. This is just more evidence why.

“President Bush state publicly that he opposes a program of racial preferences for minority applicants at the University of Michigan. The Bush administration urged the Supreme Court to declare the University of Michigan’s admissions system unconstitutional. Do you approve or disapprove of the Bush administration’s decision to oppose the University of Michigan’s racial preference admissions policy?”

There are a number of problems here. First, the buzz word of “racial preferences.” Who thought this was going to produce unbiased data? The phrase—even for those who don’t recognize it as a Republican buzz word—almost demands an American reject it. We’re not a country of “preference”—we’re a country of merit. Second, the question is as much about whether respondents support the President as it is about race and admissions. And finally, the question is confusing, asking people whether they approved of Bush’s disapproval.

(A better question would have been something along the lines of: “The University of Michigan uses a number of criteria when considering applicants for admission. These include academic performance, athletic and artistic ability, geographic location, and family history with the University. Do you favor using race as one of these factors?)

Now, let’s think about the relevance of a poll like this. If the sample drawn was (as the Times claims) consistent with the population, it means that only 26% of respondents had a college degree. Are people with no experience of college qualified to determine admissions policies? More significantly, the question is a matter of law. Does a poll of random Americans contribute anything to a discussion of the legality of the policy? Obviously it does not.

All it really does is put the heat on the Supreme Court—heat that was turned up once already by the President. As I wrote back on January 15, the politicization of the judiciary doesn’t benefit anyone, and it knocks the whole checks and balances thing out of whack. It’s bad enough this was a bogus survey—it’s worse that it was even done in the first place. Shame on the Times.

"President Bush's budget proposes new eligibility requirements that would make it more difficult for low-income families to obtain a range of government benefits, from tax credits to school lunches."

"About half of the 28 million children in the National School Lunch Program receive free meals because they come from low-income families. But John H. Rice, a spokesman for the federal Food and Nutrition Service, said the government had found that the number of students certified for free meals was about 25 percent higher than the number who appeared to be eligible, according to Census Bureau data."

You're following this aren't you?--to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy, we must crack down on the deadbeat kids trying to eat lunch. Well, try this logic on for size, then:

"The Bush budget would also replace one of the largest federal housing programs with a block grant to states, which could redirect some of the money away from working poor people in cities. Mr. Bush said he wanted to shift money and responsibility for this and other social welfare programs, including Medicaid, to the states."| link |

But wait. The President is himself a deadbeat:

But today, as educators from around the country digested next year's federal education budget, many said it recalled not a new approach, but the familiar practice of an administration pledging more support than it delivers.

Backers of the administration's education law, No Child Left Behind, said that the level of federal spending was far below the amounts the administration agreed to in negotiating the law with Congress and that the shortfalls would undermine the states' ability to deliver on the law's ambitious promise. | link |

Well, nevermind that, the states can handle a little extra burden for the sake of the kiddies, right? Oops:

Estimates of state budget deficits for the current fiscal year have grown by nearly 50 percent in two months, creating the worst fiscal outlook for states since World War II and prompting nearly half of them to consider raising taxes, a new survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures shows.

| link |

I don't know if the Times was doing a little commentary-by-proximity, but all three of these articles appeared in the same place in today's paper. Hmmm.

Last week, in the State of the Union, President Bush declared, "We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other presidents and other generations."

This week, the president sent his budget to Congress.

We can hope other generations had a nice weekend.

Private insurance for Medicaid patients; other changes will eliminate coverage for some seniors;

Calls to drill in ANWR

Increases in Homeland Security and Defense and the SEC, decreases for the Department of Labor, CDC, after-school services, vocational training, the Department of Education (45 programs in total), aid for rural development, monies for policing, public housing, and Amtrak;

According to this budget, defense spending will increase only 4% in 2003, but will increase by $20b every year thereafter, rising from $390 to $484b.

And nowhere in the budget is there an allotment for costs associated with an Iraq war (I know, I know, he hasn’t made up his mind).

OK, a careful reading of the Pelletiere article in the NYTimes is required. Basically, he says that the question of whether the Kurds were gassed by the Iraqis at Halabja is in dispute. Well, whatever. There were numerous (many? several?) other gassing incidents that do not seem to be in dispute. Thus, Pelletiere is trying to trick his readers into drawing a conclusion he does not himself present, namely "that Saddam didn't gas the Kurds." Very clever, but of course, you see right through it.

In dispute are two gassings. The first happened during the Iran-Iraq war and the second afterward. While Tom’s sources don’t seriously refute the assertion of the first claim—that it may well have been Iran who were doing the gassing, and aiming not at Kurds but Iraqis—they ably do so with the second. Actually, everyone involved cites sources I don’t have access to, but reading through Pelletiere’s arguments and then Edward Mortimer’s rebuttal inclines me to agree with Mortimer. Furthermore, there’s a Human Rights Watch report that agrees with Mortimer. You can read a nice exchange Pelletiere and Mortimer here, and the Human Rights Watch report here.

Of course, Pelletiere’s weak argument doesn’t excuse the President’s lies. Tom, care to rebut those?

There is a grassroots campaign underway to protest war in Iraq in a simple, but potentially powerful way.

Place 1/2 cup uncooked rice in a small plastic bag (a snack-size bag or sandwich bag work fine). Squeeze out excess air and seal the bag. Wrap it in a piece of paper on which you have written, "If your enemies are hungry, feed them. Romans 12:20. Please send this rice to the people of Iraq; do not attack them."

Place the paper and bag of rice in an envelope (either a letter-sized or padded mailing envelope--both are the same cost to mail) and address them to:

President George Bush White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NWWashington, DC 20500

Attach $1.06 in postage. (Three 37-cent stamps equal $1.11)

Drop ! this in the mail. It is important to act NOW so that President Bush gets the letters ASAP, before the supposed Feb 5 start date.

In order for this protest to be effective, there must be hundreds of thousands of such rice deliveries to the White House. We can do this if you each forward this message to your friends and family.

There is a positive history of this protest!

In the mid 1950's, Communist China was experiencing a dramatic famine. An American peace organization, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, began a campaign for American aid to China. The Fellowship of Reconciliation asked its members to send little bags of rice to the White House, with a request that President Eisenhower send food to China. But food was never sent. And for decades the Fellowship of Reconciliation considered this campaign a failure.

When Eisenhower's papers were ma! de public in the mid-80's, a different story came to l! ight. During that same period in the 50's, the United States was involved in a war in Korea. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, fearful that China would become involved in the conflict, kept urging Eisenhower to drop a nuclear bomb on China. Each time this idea came up, Eisenhower would excuse himself, walk down to the White House mail room, and ask how many bags of rice had come in that day. Then he would return to the meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and say that if a hundred people on that day were asking him to send rice to the Chinese, the United States could not possibly drop a nuclear bomb on China.

I'll give it a shot. A buck ten? Half a cup of rice?

Lie (v.i.): To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive; to say or do that which is intended to deceive another, when he has a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.

--Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

The question arises: when is it appropriate for the President to lie to the public?

Why does it arise? Because we have so many recent examples. In today's news alone, I've seen two articles that finger the President for outright lies and misuse of information; a third for stifling speech. And of course, there are the aluminum tubes, the tax cuts benefiting the "average citizen," lies about labor unions and more.

Today's reports involve--predictably--Iraq. In the first, Hans Blix calls Bush a liar. Follow the link to read the specific lies--there are three--but the upshot is this: he doesn't think a war is warranted and he's peeved that Bush is using his report to justify one.

The second report is far more disturbing. I haven't had a chance to roam the blogosphere today, but I'll be amazed if it isn't buzzing with news from the Times editorial asserting that Saddam didn't gas the Kurds. According to the author, Stephen C. Pelletiere (no random peacenik--a professor at the Army War College with access to classified material), the Kurds were caught in the crossfire between Iranian and Iraqi fighters and, based on analysis done of the dead, it appears more likely that Iranian gas killed the Kurds. In any case, the gas was employed during war. This is a very different story from the old "Saddam gassed his own people" saw. Furthermore, Pelletiere elaborates on the ulterior motive argument, adding water to the oil mix. It's absolutely shocking news.

Bush has never made a strong case for going to war against Iraq. He's argued two points--that Saddam's a very bad man and that Iraq's a "gathering danger." Most of the arguments he's made about the "gathering danger" have been questioned or proved to be lies. And so he was left with the moral argument, which no one has seen the need to refute. But this evidence (if true, always if true) throws even that into question.

It's always been the case that presidents lie. Sometimes it's necessary to protect the republic. In these cases, no one would argue the truth-at-any-cost line. Sometimes it's to cover up health problems or a seedy rendezvous. After eight years of blue dresses, I'm willing to let these go by, as well. But if the lies are to advance a secret agenda and subvert the intent of the constitution and undermine the republic, they are clearly the most dangerous threat to the US. One doesn't want to go too far on this, but even reasonable people are beginning to wonder about the constant stream of lies. I think it's time to start demanding answers about the President's intentions.

(On a more amusing note, Laura Bush's love affair with books may have hit a bump in the road. After inviting a group of poets to a White House symposium, she learned that they--shockingly--were not high on the whole dead Iraqi kids scenario. Turns out they were even going to use the event to voice their displeasure. Thus was the event scuttled.)

“As our nation moves troops and builds alliances to make our world safer, we must also remember our calling as a blessed country is to make this world better.”

This is a very different persona from the bump-along Governor of 1999 and 2000. The good ‘ol boy George of that era was distingushed mainly for being a nice guy. Buddy George, the kind of guy you’d like to drink beer with or catch a ballgame. If I were getting paid to blog, I’d do a little research into the adjectives reporters used then to describe him—I suspect they’d be in the “genial” cluster. (Of course I’m not, so we’ll just have to guess.)

But Buddy George died somewhere in a plane on the way to Nebraska on September 11th, 2001, presumably while he watched Rudy Giuliani bestride rubble and wreckage, striking courage into the hearts of shocked Americans. You see, this is the fascinating thing—the President has been a leader for less than a decade. Whereas most politicians polish their images in the relatively dim glow of state legislatures or on city councils, Bush is doing it before our eyes. September 11 accelerated the process, and from it emerged General George, “smoke ‘em out” George. This is the "bold" George about whom so much has been made since 9/11 (surf on over to the Daily Howler for the annals of boldness)--certainly a far cry from Buddy George.

Two nights ago, things got even more interesting. General George, who admittedly was getting a bit tedious, morphed into something new. General George was having to muck around with polls and allies, both of which seemed to indicate that they were wishing they could have Buddy George back. Instead, they got Preacher George.

Preacher George don't need no stinkin' allies. Preacher George doesn't care about polls. Preacher George has gone beyond politics and into faith.

"In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances and by the might of the United States of America.

Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility."

Preacher George is confident in his policies, sure enough to be a true leader. Allies, polls, they may not reflect support, but that doesn't mean the support won't come. Of course it will come, once Preacher George shows the way...

"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

We Americans have faith in ourselves but not in ourselves alone. We do not know - we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life and all of history.

May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America."

Can I get an Amen!