^{More Big Lie}

Bush's rare news conference confirmed a couple of things I've always said about his administration. They shamelessly go for the big lie and have no fear defending the big lie with another lie or even a contradictory lie. ("There is no warrantless spying program and the warrantless spying program is a great idea.") At his conference, our boy president wanted credit because "every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy ..."

See, they want credit for the war, even if the actual war is a failure. The "good on paper" comment confirms something many including myself have noted: to W and his flying monkeys, reality is less important than the politics and spin. Be prepared, very soon we will begin hearing about how we did a great theoretical job in Iraq but then the Iraqis fucked it up. We generously liberated them, made all kinds of sacrifices for them, spent money on them by way of Halliburton - even though according to an earlier big lie the reconstruction would pay for itself - but those crazy foreigners dropped the ball. Seriously, get ready for it.

(This is also similar to Condoleeza Rice's admission of "thousands" of errors in Iraq. Well, her spokesman corrected, thousands of figurative errors anyway. Boy for a bunch of lunkheads, the Bush administration is big on the theoretical these days.)

With Katrina, it was important for Bush to be able to claim no one saw a danger of the levees breaking. By the time facts emerged proving not only that authorities saw the danger but actually warned Bush in advance, well, it was, you know, like weeks later. Maybe the dead were still dead and the president lied to cover up his negligence in a disaster that resulted in over 1,000 American dead but Hollywood nominated a gay cowboy movie for an Oscar and there's only 24 hours on a 24 hour news network.

When you dig deeper into the levee story - and you have to dig because the media certainly didn't trumpet this - you find the claim that W didn't hear the warning because he wasn't listening at his own briefing. His defenders offer this excuse! You see, Bush sat in on the briefing to help with morale among the first responders - not to actually be briefed. I guess morale was supposed to soar at the idea that you were briefing the president, not at the idea that the president was actually listening. And while I'm on the subject, isn't this kind of a touchy-feely excuse? "My leadership wasn't based on help or results but on other people's feelings"? Anyway, I'm sure W's preparation for and response to Katrina were "good on paper."

Also, note how W wrests the discussion away from reality and into the realm of the theoretical with a lie. Not every war plan looks good on paper. This administration was even warned, more than once, that its war plan looked pretty shoddy on paper. As someone who opposed the Iraq war long before it became fashionable, I remember my disbelief at "Shock and Awe," "cakewalk," "cheers and flowers" and "months." If a stay-at-home dad can tell you your paper war plan sucks, it sucks. When called upon to defend a lie, this administration never hesitates to go for another lie.

Here's where this administration is particularly slippery. Instinctive, reactionary lies, but also grand ambition and arrogance. Remember after 2004? "I earned some political capital" - again, another lie since W won a squeaker not a mandate - "and now I'm gonna spend it." Anyone remember what he aimed to spend it on? Privatizing Social Security. That went down in flames, but failure doesn't stop this President. So let's nuke Iran.

President claims the right to wiretap Americans without a warrant, breaking the separation of powers, the law, and our privacy in one fell swoop. Instead of getting defensive, the way a Democrat would, W gets ticked off anyone would even question him about it. But before we can really digest this outrage, we learn that W would leak classified information, wrap it in a lie ("The rest of the stuff is even more damning"), and then lie about it ("If anyone in my administration ..."). Why? Partially, to smear one of his critics who had the nerve to reveal an earlier lie (Iraq and Niger). Any ideas how he'll defend himself? My guess is with a lie.

Future generations, shaking their heads, will remember the W administration for its incompetence, yes, and its lies, yes, and its lasting damage to the country and world, obviously, but mostly they'll connect the W administration with audacity. A normal person in charge on 9/11 would at least quietly reflect on what went wrong, what could have been done better on their watch. Bush saw an opportunity. A normal person in charge during wartime wouldn't dream of cutting veteran's benefits. Did Bush think twice? Once? A normal person would flinch at the idea of dressing up like a soldier to steal some glory and declare a victory that wasn't there. Not only did Bush accomplish Mission Photo Op, he cowed everybody into not mentioning Dukakis in the tank, which is what he looked like.

I make "Bush is stupid" jokes just like any other decent American, but a stupid person would be more haphazard than Bush. Bush, to our lasting shame, consistently lies more, stumbles further and then reaches for more power. A big lie to justify a little lie. A program with failing results follows a program that fails to get off the ground.

A stupid person would occasionally be right. An audacious person would just reach for more.