The repugs are starting to get worried about Der Fuhrer's popularity
rating (and even more worried about scamming the 2004 election).

But, with no ability to invade another country for a while, they plan on
re-hypnotising America once more. Expect lots of lies, lots of plastic
patriotism, and lots and LOTS of accusations of "treason" aginst the
critics who still dare to think.

The question is, are you going to allow yourself to be dragged back into
The Matrix like a good, obedient little drone?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/15/po...058846400&en=d
49ebb080efc14e2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

July 15, 2003

White House Shoves Back on Bush Claim
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

ASHINGTON, July 14 ‹ The White House mounted an aggressive campaign
today to contain what several Republicans said was a potentially
worrisome dispute over President Bush's use of suspect information in
pressing for a war on Iraq.

As part of their offensive, White House officials released new
information to buttress Mr. Bush's claim, attacked the credibility of
his Democratic critics and accused the news media of a "feeding frenzy."

After weeks of declining to disclose such information, Mr. Bush's aides
described a chronology that they said mitigated Mr. Bush's citation of
unsubstantiated British intelligence in his State of the Union address
on Jan. 28. The president referred to the intelligence that Iraq had
tried to buy uranium from Africa to further a nuclear weapons program as
one reason in making his case for invading Iraq.

Today Mr. Bush, personally addressing the issue for the fourth time in
six days, asserted at the White House that questions about the evidence
he used did not undercut his overall case for war.

At the same time, Mr. Bush's political advisers pushed back against
Democratic presidential contenders who have in recent days accused him
of losing credibility on what had been seen as his strong suit, foreign
affairs. The Republican National Committee issued a statement tonight
asserting that "Democrats politicize war in Iraq," while party leaders
declared that Democrats did not have the standing to challenge Mr. Bush
on the subject.

"The bottom line is this ‹ what is their policy, what are they for?" Ed
Gillespie, the incoming chairman of the Republican National Committee,
said in an interview today. "We know what they are against, we know they
don't like the president. But what are they going to do?"

The rapid counterattack from the White House, the Republican National
Committee and Mr. Bush's re-election campaign suggested that Mr. Bush's
advisers were unsettled about the turn of events, even as they expressed
continuing confidence in the president's overall political support. And
while arguing that Mr. Bush would suffer no long-term damage, some
Republicans still said it was critical that he respond to the attacks by
the Democrats.

"They have the potential to hurt, unless they are firmly and forcefully
and frequently answered," said Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of
Pennsylvania. "I don't think you can let any of this go unanswered. And
I don't think the president is going to take any of this lying down."

At the White House, the departing press secretary, Ari Fleischer, used a
briefing on his last day to castigate the press for a "media feeding
frenzy that misinterprets why America went to war."

Mr. Fleischer said that questions about the episode had been adequately
addressed by the administration. But Democrats, as well as some people
outside of politics, disputed Mr. Fleischer's portrayal of the issue as
just a slow summer-news squall.

"It's much more than a media frenzy, because it does reflect on the
truthfulness of the U.S. government, and whether they distorted facts to
get into the war," said Bryce Nelson, a University of Southern
California journalism professor. "The coverage is probably less than it
should be."

Mr. Bush's political advisers said today that they were highly
optimistic about his prospects for 2004.

Even so, a few recent polls have signaled erosion in Mr. Bush's public
standing as questions have grown about his handling of the war. A
Washington Post/ABC News Poll over the weekend found that Mr. Bush's
overall job approval rating had dropped nine percentage points in 18
days, to 59 percent.

That remains a very strong number, though the speed of the decline has
caught the attention of Republicans strategists, who said the White
House needed to move quickly to make sure criticisms like those swirling
around the statement about uranium sales did not take hold.

"We learned that from the Clinton folks: You can't let any story get out
there without a response, or you'll get killed," said Ronald Kaufman,
who was political director for Mr. Bush's father. "You can't leave it
unanswered. This is a legitimate news story today. But it won't be a
legitimate political story tomorrow."

As part of that effort throughout the day, White House officials argued
that the statement, as Mr. Bush made it in his State of the Union, was
at least technically correct in quoting British intelligence. Mr. Bush
defended the quality of the intelligence-gathering operation of his
administration, even as he acknowledged that suspect information did not
belong in his address.

"The intelligence I get is darn good intelligence and the speeches I
have given are backed by good intelligence," Mr. Bush said.

He added: "When all is said and done, the people of the United States
will realize that Saddam Hussein had a weapons program."

He also defended the overall mission in Iraq, which Democratic
presidential contenders have also criticized, noting the continued
casualties and chaos since Baghdad's fall.

"Our country made the right decision," Mr. Bush said.

Disputing that assertion, though, has produced a rare agreement across
almost the entire spectrum of the nine Democrats running for president.
Aides to several Democratic candidates said that while they did not
believe they could ever actually overcome Mr. Bush on the issue of
national security, they could at least blunt his standing in the area.

Raising questions about Mr. Bush's credibility in Iraq, several
Democratic campaign aides also said, may prove useful as the candidates
move to attack his credibility on other issues.

Mr. Bush's political aides said that they would continue to rebut any
Democratic criticism. "We just need to take head-on their policy
discussion here," said Mr. Gillespie, the incoming party leader. "The
more we can take it on head-on, the better off we are, because it does
highlight a big contest between this administration and Republican
policies on national security, and the lack of policy on the Democratic
side."