The straw man argument is often made by political hacks who prove a point by mischaracterizing their opponent's position. Under one definition of the phrase, "A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To 'set up a straw man' or 'set up a straw-man argument' is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

The straw man is alive and well in American politics. It works because voters are uninformed and the use of straw men is an easy way to rally the faithful. It makes your political opponent sound much more unreasonable when you can tag him with outrageous political viewpoints and then strike them down like a bowling pin.

The Republican Party is in trouble because Bush's popularity has hit a ceiling and 50 to 60 percent of the American people don't like his policies. But he can still rally the faithful and drive home his points before the fawning sheep who attend Republican fund raisers and make campaign contributions.

One strategy is to argue that the Democrats are weak on terror and will not protect the homeland. That Bush and his cronies can get away with this argument is astonishing in light of the gross incompetence displayed pre- and post-9/11. It is clear, for example, that Bush and co. did not pay enough attention to the al Qaeda threat and that dire warnings received the brush-off, i.e., Bush's frat-boy response ("you've covered your ass, now") when an intelligence official told him three weeks before 9/11 that bin Ladin was coming perilously close to attacking the U.S.

In light of the pathetic disgrace that characterizes nearly every aspect of the Bush administration, he slapped the opposition party with the ultimate charge: Democrats will not do what it takes to protect the American people.

This is from the Washington Post:

"One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,' " Bush said at a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) before heading to Colorado for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez.

Asked about the president's statement, White House aides could not name any Democrat who has said that the government should not listen in on terrorists. Democrats who voted against the legislation had complained that it would hand too much power to the president and had said that they wanted more checks in the bill to protect civil liberties.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) called Bush's comment outrageous: "Every member of Congress, from both parties, supports listening in on terrorist communications, but the president still hasn't explained why we have to break the law to do it. It is time for the president to stop exploiting the terrorist threat to justify his power grab."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended Bush's remark as a reasonable extrapolation of the Democratic position. "Of course, they aren't silly enough to say they don't want to listen in on terrorists, but actions speak louder than words, and people should know what the Democrats' voting record is," she said.

Who's buying this shit? When the Bush administration is called on the allegation that Democrats do not want to monitor terrorist communications, a spokeswoman dissembles and offers up a sorry justification for Bush's inarticulate slander.

All of this is very sobering. All that we can do is to hit back, and to hit back hard. Click here to watch Keith Olbermann attack Bush in the strongest language possible. Olbermann is now running weekly monologues that hit the nail right on the head, telling Bush that "you have dishonored yourself." Someday, many years from now, people will watch these monologues and know that at least one person in the major media was fighting back. Watch it now.

An excerpt:

The president of the United States -- unbowed, undeterred and unconnected to reality -- has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: the Democrats.

Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, "177 of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.'"

The hell they did.

One hundred seventy-seven Democrats opposed the president's seizure of another part of the Constitution.

Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists.

President Bush hears what he wants.

Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said, "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond."

Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.

And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind reader.

"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the president said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is -- wait until we're attacked again."

The president doesn't just hear what he wants.

He hears things that only he can hear.

It defies belief that this president and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow.

Yet they do.

It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any president of this nation.

Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders, Democrats, the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies of treason.

But it is the context that truly makes the head spin.

Straw men are the older brothers of propaganda. Propaganda works when highly skilled public relations experts endeavor to manipulate public opinion. But seeing how propaganda works behind the scenes is like eating hamburgers at a slaughterhouse. Here's a recent article that sheds light on administration thinking:

Tucked away in fine print in the military spending bill for this past year was a lump sum of $20 million to pay for a celebration in Washington "for commemoration of success" in Iraq and Afghanistan, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

Congressional Republicans are now saying, in effect, maybe next year, The Times reported. A paragraph written into spending legislation and approved by the Senate and House allows the $20 million to be rolled over into 2007.

The original legislation, the newspaper said, empowered the president to designate "a day of celebration" to commemorate the success of the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to "issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities."

Twenty million bucks to celebrate victory at war? Try using that money to send Bush to a good speech therapist.