Bush is clearly not living in the world we live in. He doesn't lie; it's just that, when he talks, he's not describing the world we live in. In fact, he welcomes us all to join him in his fervent worship of a simplistic black-and-white world where saying something makes it true. A few examples: <dl dt_class="field"> Al Qaeda Apparently, the war on terror is going unbelievably well: it's a catastrophic success. Bush noted in the second debate that <iq>we're bringing Al Qaida to justice. Seventy five percent of them have been brought to justice.</iq> Where, pray tell, does that number come from? Does anyone even care anymore when Bush pulls a number out of his ass? How do we know how many people are in Al Qaeda? How do we even know if it exists, per se? Doesn't matter, we've caught 75% and by the end of his next 4 years, we'll have easily cleaned up the rest. Then we can all celebrate in a world without evil. The Taliban In Bush's fairy-tale world, the Taliban also no longer exist. Because we vanquished them. In the real world, they didn't stay vanquished for long, although they have had to cede power to the warlords throughout most of Afghanistan, where the drug trade has increased by approximately 400 million percent. Afghanistan <div> This is a picture-perfect example of a country that benefitted from the freedom that America oozes from it's pores as it strides through the benighted world, bestowing freedom and compassion with a kind paternal hand. Bush touted their recent elections as an astounding success; <a href="http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/10/19/ed.edit.afghanistan.phn.1019.html" title="Afghanistan's election: U.S., allies must fulfill long-term commitment">Afghanistan's election</a> gives a brief run-down of the country's situation: <bq>warlords have gained power in ... provinces where their private militias hold sway. The opium trade, once quashed under the Taliban, has been revived on a massive scale. Violence has driven <b>most nonprofit organizations from the countryside</b>. Health experts warn that 70 percent of Afghan people are malnourished; only 13 percent have access to potable water and sanitation. (emphasis added)</bq> Hold on a minute. <i>Doctors without borders</i> has bailed on the country as too dangerous, but their elections are more than just an idle gesture? How can that be? So the people of Afghanistan (those than aren't too starved to even get to a polling station, which would be 30% of them) voted for the president of Kabul (<iq>outside of Kabul, where 80 percent of Afghans live ... Karzai's control is tenuous or nonexistent</iq>)? Wow ... massive progress. A resounding blow for freedom. All signs indicate that the timing of this election once again, suspiciously, benefits Bush, as the article also notes that a lot of work needs to be done to make sure that <iq>this election is not to be Afghanistan's last</iq>. </div> Diplomacy During the second debate, Bush defended his record as a war president, declaring that <iq>obviously we hope that diplomacy works before you ever use force. The hardest decision a president makes is ever to use force.</iq> That statement alone proves there is no God, else he would have been struck dead by 10,000 simultaneous lightning blasts. Later he said that <iq>I tried diplomacy, went to the United Nations.</iq> Just showing up in a building is not diplomacy, jackass. That's called lip service. Just like coming up with new, ever more fantastical reasons to attack Iraq each time one is shot down doesn't count as "trying to avoid a war". Weapons of Mass Destruction <div> The recently-issued Duelfer report about WMDs is huge. Almost everyone who reads it or heard his testimony sees overwhelming proof that the sanctions worked and that, after 1995, Saddam had no WMDs left. The fact that, in the last 20 months, no weapons have been found, is also somewhat damning to the Bush administration's justifications for war. Bush to the rescue! He goes the extra mile and notes only that Saddam (who is an evil bastard, we all agree), wasn't playing nice with the UN sanctions. In fact, he was <iq>gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions ... [because] ... [h]e wanted to restart his weapons programs</iq>. For Bush, <iq>[t]hat's what the Duelfer report showed. He was deceiving the inspectors.</iq> Period. That's it. There are no other conclusions to draw from the report except that Bush was right all along. Of course, Saddam didn't have any weapons, nor any means to procure them. However, since the sanctions (which neither candidate condemns for the human-rights disaster it was) didn't magically turn Saddam into a nice guy, they obviously weren't enough. See? You see how it was right to go to Iraq? When you look at 7 words out of a 10000 page document and ignore all other physical evidence? You see how a powerful faith can truly move mountains? </div> Election in Iraq These will happen in January and they will mean something. The shining example of Afghanistan will lead Iraq out of the darkness. Coalition of the Willing <div> Look ... the name itself is completely uninspiring. Remember how disgusted Bush was that Kerry <iq>forgot Poland</iq>? Too bad Bush wasted all of that time learning how to pronounce Aleksander Kwasniewski because they have in the meantime also withdrawn their troops. Bush will tell you all day long that the coalition is composed of dozens of strong countries. Kerry nailed him to the wall with these beauties though: <iq>Mr. President, countries are leaving the coalition, not joining. Eight countries have left it.</iq> and this one was just priceless: <bq>If Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States.</bq> Ouch! Naturally, Bush's version of reality survived intact. </div> Missile Defense Shield <div> And finally, a fantasy that many other presidents and candidates also slobber on about. Here's where Bush doesn't even attempt to technically justify the shield --- he just notes that his opponent is opposed to it and smirks. This, for a seemingly impossibly consistent 45% of America, is enough proof that the program is good. Never mind that there is no way it will ever work; never mind that Reagan, one of the century's leading thinkers, hatched this hare-brained idea; never mind that only scientists on a Rebulican think-tank's payroll will offer any comment other than gut-laughing. never mind that it's obvious pandering to his strongest corporate supporters: the military-industrial complex. Kerry, believe it or not, is opposed to it and plans to shut the program down (if possible, I might add ... it might be too much a part of the budget culture by now). There are rumors that work is underway to provide a several-missile deployment in California as "proof" that Kim Jong Il is not a threat. Two birds with one subterfuge would be quite a feather in its cap for this administration. </div> </dl>