Quick Reads

A quick trip thru the WashPost and various blogs yields these reading recommendations:

The Difference Between Terrorists and Wedding Guests

Army Investigates Wider Iraq Offenses

Cooling On Ashcroft

Bush could be accused of conduct unincumbent

Best quote from above link:

For now, though, Kerry can enjoy the luxury of running a 19th-century campaign, offering policy pronouncements from his rhetorical front porch while others stoke the outrage against Bush.

It's not a small advantage. With each serious speech and sober pronouncement, Kerry looks more like a man preparing for a new administration in January.

And with each intemperate attack ad, Bush looks like a man expecting a different administration in January, too.

Must Read:

The WashPost's Dana Milbank calls Bush on his over-use of the StrawMan technique:

For President Bush, this is the season of the straw man.

It is an ancient debating technique: Caricature your opponent's argument, then knock down the straw man you created. In the 2004 campaign, Bush has been knocking down such phantoms on subjects from Iraq to free trade.

In a speech on May 21 mentioning the importance of integrity in government, business and the military, Bush veered into a challenge to unidentified "people" who practice moral relativism. "It may seem generous and open-minded to say that everybody, on every moral issue, is equally right," Bush said, at Louisiana State University. "But that attitude can also be an excuse for sidestepping life's most important questions."

No doubt. But who's made such arguments? Hannibal Lecter? The White House declined to name names.

On May 19, Bush was asked about a plan by his Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), to halt shipments that are replenishing emergency petroleum reserves. Bush replied by saying we should not empty the reserves -- something nobody in a responsible position has proposed. "The idea of emptying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would put America in a dangerous position in the war on terror," Bush said. "We're at war."

The president has used a similar technique on the stump, when explaining his decision to go to war in Iraq in light of the subsequent failure to find stockpiles of forbidden weapons. In the typical speech, Bush explains the prewar intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein had such weapons, and then presents in inarguable conclusion: "So I had a choice to make: either trust the word of a madman, or defend America. Given that choice, I will defend America every time."

Missing from that equation is the actual choice Bush confronted: support continued U.N. weapons inspections, or go to war.