"to persuade [the Public] to go to war on the basis of the WMD intelligence was a "slam dunk." Or at least that's a plausible inference. If that's true, then the betrayal of faith is even deeper than we imagined." -AS
"As I documented in Tempting Faith and wrote here for Beliefnet in 2005, Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and the faith-based initiative have been among the great charades of the modern presidency." - David Kuo
I'm all for unveiling for responsible accountability.
It does seem, however, that Bush, who campaigned to such applause after Clinton on the phrase "restore respectibility to the Presidency" or some such bombast, has, in fact, taught a new generation that their government, even their elected one, can and will ... stretch the truth, if not more (i.e. be derelict in duty).
As for David Kuo, he hasn't become a liberal, but he seems to understand that Bush has a streak of hard-line Conservatism in him, which in contemporary times, amounts to scoring points with the religious right by winning symbolic battles, but not doing so much that it turns off the mightily flowing money taps of the super-rich, who are his self-proclaimed base ("This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP standard-bearer [Bush]. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base").
Luckily, all the nation isn't as disillusioned with the fall of "Compassionate Conservatism", which frankly many saw through from day one as nothing but a superb electioneering ploy, just as they did the "case" against Saddam.
By the way, this political coming-of-age story, that can border of maudlin if prolonged, isn't unique to Conservatism. Liberal politicians pander, too.
