American Prospect Online - ViewWeb: "Bush’s words may be semantically secure, but his intent has always been to mislead."

Matt Yglesias has some thoughts on how Bush and his handlers say things that are technically true but actually misleading. Gives him some measure of plausible deniability, I guess, but it still stinks. It stinks in the way that Clinton was savaged for the same behavior with lower stakes.

Sometimes I really wonder about Bush's appeal. Do people really like his facade of steadfastness? Do they really think that their economic future is better off with this guy? What about security? Saw Marc Racicot on cnn this morning defending the Prez and attacking Kerry. Kerry, he noted, was impossible to understand because his message changed so much (big flipflopper) while the President, he noted, was still clear. Even with what he knows now about Iraq and WMD, he would still invade Iraq!

Now, I understand that the pundits and Bush's own people would stroke out if he actually admitted a mistake, and it would play badly with his base if he said that given what he knows now, he would have pursued a slower course in Iraq. But give me a break! We know that Iran (that's and "n") actually assisted the 9-11 hijackers, and, oh right, it is Iran who has a growing nuclear program, and, oh right, Iran that benefits greatly from destabalizing Iraq. I am not saying we should have invaded Iran instead, but how do you look at this situation and not have a trace of humility?

Shame on Bush for his obstinant flipflopping, and shame on the American public for encouraging it.