Over at Atrios readers are compiling a “Wingnut Debate Dictionary.” See if you can find your favorite rhetorical trick.
UPDATE: More entries here.

When blogging, I don’t deliberately set out to harp on Iraq all the time. But some of the stuff I read these days is almost surreal.
Remember how in the build-up to war President Bush played the part of the reluctant warrior? As he described it, war was being thrust upon us by Saddam. Combat was the “last option.”
Well, maybe not. A new report claims that representatives from Iraq made a last-minute offer to resolve the standoff peacefully. But a high administration official ordered Defense Policy Advisory Board Chair Richard Perle not to negotiate a deal:

“Although I was not enthusiastic about the offer, I was willing to meet with the Iraqis,” Perle told ABCNEWS. “The United States government told me not to.” Perle would not disclose which official or arm of the government rejected the talks.
. . .
[Lebanese-American businessman Imad Hage] said the United States missed a chance to avert war. “It seemed to me there was a genuine offer that was on the table and somebody should have talked, at least talked.”

During this same time period Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld observed:

“The American people can take comfort in knowing that their country has done everything humanly possible to avoid war and to secure Iraq’s peaceful disarmament.”

Right.
Meanwhile, via Billmon comes this bizarre nugget. Marine Corps General Peter Pace, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, contends the administration delayed planning for post-war Iraq because it was concerned such planning would lead to conflict:

‘We did not want to have planning for the post war make the war inevitable. We did not want to do anything that would prejudge or somehow preordain that there was definitely going to be a war,” he said.

Huh? Apparently our months-long build up of 100,000 troops and supplies in Kuwait was an ambiguous move. But had we assembled an adequate post-war plan, now that would have tipped the Iraq government off. Yeah.
For a serious treatment of the situation in Iraq, as opposed to the administration’s happy talk, see Senator John McCain’s speech at the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday.

There’s been a notable amount of hubbub in the blogosphere and in last night’s debate regarding Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean’s recent references to the Confederate flag:

“I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”

and

“White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us, and not [Republicans], because their kids don’t have health insurance either, and their kids need better schools too.”

Feeling the heat, today Dean issued an apology of sorts:

“Many people in the African-American community have supported what I said in the past few days because they understand what this is about,” the former Vermont governor said. “But some have not, and to those I deeply regret the pain that I may have caused.”
Speaking at New York’s Cooper Union, Dean stopped short of apologizing and vowed not to shirk from “difficult and painful” discussions about race relations. “Feelings will be hurt,” Dean said.
Later, he called the AP to clarify the comments in his speech.
“That was an apology. You heard it from me,” Dean said. “It was a remark that inflicted a lot of pain on people for whom the flag of the Confederacy is a painful symbol of racism and slavery.”

People have different sensitivities for pain. The Confederate flag is a divisive symbol–one which in the eyes of many carries a racial charge, no matter what the context. But I don’t think anyone who reasonably examines what Dean said will interpret his comments as an appeal to racism. You can only reach that conclusion if you assume that a majority of Southerners brandishing the Confederate flag are racists–thus meaning Dean was seeking the vote of racists. Clearly, that’s not the case.
Dean would have avoided himself this grief if he had simply said he was after voters with gun racks in their pickup trucks. Though, as Senator Edwards noted, this still would have been somewhat stereotypical. But the real reason this statement has generated such a buzz is because it’s provided opponents an opportunity to take a shot at Dean. Months ago he made a similar statement and nothing was made of it. But now that he’s one of the Democratic front runners, everyone is aiming the buckshot at his rear end.

Daniel Drezner compares and contrasts the difference in treatment between German General Reinhard Guenzel, who was fired for his support of someone who made anti-Semitic remarks, and U.S. General Jerry Boykin, who’s received no discipline for his anti-Islamic remarks. I don’t know much about the former case, and I’m sure the parallels aren’t exact. But suffice it to say that the latter case illustrates that Bush isn’t going to hold anyone accountable who:

1. tows the administration line; and/or
2. preaches the gospel of the religious right.

That’s poor management.

As Atrios points out, Bush’s signing of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 produced a classic photo op (Yahoo! backup): nine males encircle the signing table–not one female in sight.