Close reading actually comes in handy.

Bush is a moron, but he's living proof that even morons can be well-coached. In the face of growing criticism over his mishandling of the Iraq war, and especially Howard Dean's announcement yesterday that the US "can't win the war," Bush responded with this assertion that, like most of his assertions, is not backed up by any facts whatsoever (the writing teacher in me always notes when someone tries to assert their thesis rather than prove it):

"I know we're going to win," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Our troops
need to hear not only are they supported, but that we have got a strategy that will win."

Well, I think everyone would like to hear that "we have got a strategy that will win," but saying we do and actually having one are two different things. I could say that the District will get voting representation in Congress by 2008, but that doesn't exactly make it so.

But as I said, Mr. Bush is cleverly coached, and he and his handlers have made sure that they try to muddy support for his failed war policy into "support for the troops." The troops have been almost unanimously supported by the anti-war opposition; groups like Veterans for Peace consist of former soldiers who believe the best support for the troops is to bring them home, rather than waste them in a display of Presidential hubris. Here Bush is again conflating support for the war with support for the troops (note the "but" that begins his second sentence):

"Of course, there will be debate, and of course, there will be some pessimists and some people playing politics with the issue," he said. "But, by far, the vast majority of the people in this country stand squarely with the men and women who wear the nation's uniform."

If only he stood with them as well, rather than playing dress up with them and declaring "mission accomplished" before the majority of US troop deaths had occurred.

Unfortunately, I have little hope that the Democrats will articulate a practical response to BushCo's assault on reason. As I told the would-be fundraiser from the DNC who called me the other day asking for money, I refuse to financially support an organization whose only ideas are that they aren't as bad as the Republicans. As wonderful as Dennis Kucinich is, and as bold as John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi's declarations was last week, the fact remains that the bulk of the party leadership (exception made for Howard Dean and Pelosi -- although Pelosi was riding Murtha's coattails) is timid and herd-like. Already they are scattered to the wind, according to the Post.

The Democrats are weak, but unfortunately they are the only option to outright thievery and warmongering. However, in response to the woman who called me and then accused me of "sitting on the sidelines" for not giving money to her middle-of-the-road organization, I quoted Henry David Thoreau:

"A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistable when it clogs by its whole weight."

My main point, which she didn't seem to like so much, was that money in the Dems' coffers wasn't bringing any opposition to the war; it was direct action in the streets that was bringing the Dems kicking and screaming to their antiwar positions. She tried the weak line that "we all saw the same intelligence and thought Saddam had weapons" -- hello, those are Republican talking points and factually incorrect anyway, fool -- and I said, "I was in New York City that February before the war started with a half-million people clogging the streets -- we shut down 1st and 2nd Avenues for 20 blocks. Any one of those people marching was smarter than the congressmen who voted for the war." Then she got a bit angry with me.

I also told her that until Paul Wellstone is resurrected, they'll not see any of my money. Damn I miss Paul Wellstone.

I also miss good leaders who could give rousing speeches, and this day of all days reminds me that we lack in both parties such a leader.