Lookout liberal weenies and nattering nabobs of negativism, everywhere: Bush is on the counterattack!

Says W (in a speech punctuated by a vicious series of karate chops on his podium):

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

Huh?

I'm a little confused. Lessee here:

A) It's okay to criticize the President's deeply wrong decision to go to war.
B) It's okay to criticize his bungled war effort.
C) It's not okay to analyze how he made his decision or enumerate the ways in which his battlefield "planning" has failed.

So it's okay to say he's a dipshit, but not why? Or maybe he means that the fact that he's a dipshit is so self-evident that supporting arguments are superfluous. Perhaps he's hoping that the two contradictory elements of this statement will challenge each other to a linguistic cage-match to be held in a dank fight club somewhere in Juarez, participle vs. participle in a sweat-soaked battle royale that will end in death for both unfortunately phrased non-truths, thereby canceling each other out and leaving Bush re-established as a strong, omniscient leader who never makes mistakes (or never admits them, anyway).

Most likely, though, he doesn't know what the hell he means: he's just readin' from a card on which the words are spelled out phonetically, the better for him to stammer them out without having to engage the one functioning neuron he has left.

His internal logic, which suffers from more inconsistencies than the last three Star Wars movies combined, has been revealed as so much gobbledygook. It's the logic of doublespeak, awkward euphemism, and mangled metaphors. No one believes anything he says anymore. It's nonsense.

The only one who doesn't realize that is him.  ¶ 2:20 PM