I think the fundamental problem is the amateurishness, rather than the dishonesty. Tony Blair's government has become notorious for spin, media manipulation, and stretching the truth until it snaps. Nonetheless, I trust Blair in matters of war much more than I trust Bush. This is because, whatever his other faults, Blair is a highly able politician who will put a lot of hard graft and determination into achieving his goals. Bush, by contrast, is a lazy amateur with the attention span of a small houseplant. With Blair, there's always the chance that the foreign policy will be wrong: with Bush, there's the certainty that it will be half-assed.

A nice distinction, Iain.

I disagree with Iain, respectfully. I think Bush is determined, focused and relentless - like any good fundamentalist with a born-to-rule background. Sure he's dumb, but determination is far more important in this game. The "carefree indifference to truth" is also certainly true, but it arises not from amateurishness and opportunism, but from having to say one thing for public consumption while pursuing completely different policies in reality, the most obvious recent example being the attempt to hide unabashed unilateralism behind a call for multilateral support.

But the need for double-speak is gradually abating as he gets what he wants.

Look what is starting to emerge: a war on Iraq, a major change in foreign policy from containment to pre-emption, that is, an open-ended commitment to attack whoever whenever, a bunch of allies--including my home country Australia--gradually being pulled into line, the ongoing development of space weapons, a unilateral stance on matters such as environmental and weapons control, a domestic agenda of tax cuts for the buddies and political handouts as needed (steel and agriculture) and all this on the back high polls. Seems to me this is the work of neither fools nor amateurs.

Why did I misread one line as "These Administration hawks put on a lot of hard-nosed, piratical-guy airs"?

Lots of people were saying "arrgh!" who weren't celebrating September 19. Maybe imperialism will do that to you.

Dunlop's half right. The Bush agenda - tax cuts, star wars, regime change, more oil and coal extraction - predates the administration and its challenges. No matter what the problem, the same solutions are offered. These guys aren't amateurs, but if they offer the same answer in all cases,they're fools.
Economy's doing great? Cut taxes! Economy's doing poorly? Cut taxes. Unexpected expenses? Cut taxes. The rest of the answers they offer are just as extravagantly foolish. Star wars, anyone?

Ignore any science that contradicts your assumptions. Deny any facts that might call your policies into question. Single-minded determination, the bane of romanticism, the dreadful legacy of the twentieth century, is alive and well in the third millenium.

Sorry. I agree with Tim's analysis, but use "fool" differently.

I read through the list of ‘lies’ you linked to and they did not seem like lies to me. For example the Big Lie Josh quoted was a sentence that seemed pretty reasonable. He wrote:

9Let's just take one example, one among many. In the proposed use of force 9resolution the president sent to Congress on Thursday it cites as one reason for war 9"the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to 9launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide 9them to international terrorists who would do so."

He claims it’s a lie because the first possibility of three given ‘…launch a surprise attack against the United State…” is not credible in Josh’s opinion. Maybe he’s right, but his disbelief hardly makes the statement a lie. And, where are the many other examples he has?

I checked on another ‘lie’ from Tom Tomorrow and it was also unpersuasive and really bordered on semantics. For example, Donald Rumsfeld supposedly lied here:

9"Donald Rumsfeld is testifying before the House Armed Services Committee as I write this. I just saw him note that, due to the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons, the US was "unable to respond " when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
9Well, as readers with marginally functioning memories will recall, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski acknowledged in a 1998 interview (which was 9widely circulated online last year) that the U.S. deliberately provoked a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, in hopes of giving them their own Vietnam."

This incident happened during the Carter presidency, so I suspect Rumsfeld was pointing out that that administration chose not to respond to the Soviets with direct military intervention in Afghanistan over concern about starting a larger war. How is his response anything close to being a lie? I think the real answer to this issue is what Josh said later on. He wrote:

9"There's also an issue people don't like to talk about, but which is an undeniable reality for many. Military action is easier to contemplate if it's being planned by political leaders who you support and whose values you share. One might say this is mere partisanship, agreeing with what politician X wants to do because he's a member of your party or vice versa."

In other words, Josh doesn’t like George Bush. Some of the commenters don’t either. Fine. But let’s not trick up differences of opinion into accusations of lying.

It is untrue that the US was "unable to respond" when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The US did respond when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. We sent troops (called "advisors"), money, and weapons to fight a proxy war for us, just as we had planned when we provoked the attack. Rumsfeld is deliberately making an untrue statement to present the US's actions in the best light; in most circles, deliberately circulating an untruth for one's own advantage is called "lying".