i think we all have our breaking points.
for me, it's an argument bush used yesterday finding himself down in the QaaQaa arms dumps.
bush said, if john kerry were president then saddam hussein would still be in power and sharing the weapons with our enemies.
never mind he's implying that saddam and al qaeda had collegial connections--a premise which, in his more clear-headed moments (apparent cheney does not suffer from such moments), bush has repudiated.
no, that's not the one that pushed me over the edge.
it's the idea that if saddam was in power and was "sharing" the weapons, that would be a worse situation for us than where we are now.
would saddam have shared ALL the weapons?
they're ALL gone now, in the hands of our enemies. probably behind the killing of many of our soldiers, to say nothing of red cross, u.n. and iraqi civilians.
somehow--amazingly!--bush can recycle a campaign warhorse--saddam would still be in power and we would be less safe--itself a premise wholly irrational, and heap another huge dollop of utter logical absudity upon it and...and what? get away with it unchallenged because he's so populated our public discourse with notions like this they just slip past us now?
or, is he just using words that plug into a fear so widespread that reason is frozen in its tracks?
or...oh well...or, where oh well turns into orwell.....or well....