As Clear As Mud

Dennis Prager, glorying in Bush’s SOTU speech, repeated one of his favorite tropes, how he doesn’t care about agreement, only about moral clarity. How can anyone who cares about clarity recommend Bush’s incoherence? Here’s Slate’s Fred Kaplan filleting part of Bush’s speech:

What is most head-shaking of all is that, after four years of this war, the president once more fell short of making its case. As in the past, he said that it's very important—"a decisive ideological struggle," he called it, adding, "nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed." And yet he also said that America's commitment to the war is "not open-ended." How can both claims be true? If nothing is more important, it must be open-ended. If it's not open-ended, it can't be all that important.

I don't think Bush is so stupid that he doesn't see the inconsistency here. His speech is written by a staff of professional writers, so I'm sure that these statements were intentional. Bush wants to impress us with the importance of the war and scare us into supporting him. At the same time, he actually wants us to believe that he might end the occupation. Both statements are lies intended to appeal to supporters and opponents of this war. The arrogance and contempt this man has for us is boundless.