Welcome to Bizarro World, USA

I really, really don't get what the majority of us silly Americans are thinking. Take, for example, this article: "Clarke's Charges Gain Acceptance." The first paragraph states:

Most Americans accept Richard Clarke's key criticisms of President Bush's anti-terrorism record, but a majority also thinks that politics influenced the timing of the charges by the former White House aide, a Los Angeles Times poll has found.

One underreported fact about Clarke's book is that it could have come out earlier. All books by former members of the Bush administration have to be screened by the White House to make sure the text does not include classified information. The White House took three months to review Clarke's book (NPR's Fresh Air, 3/24/04). This book could have been released while 9 Democratic candidates were still duking it out in the primaries, but it was the White House's feet dragging that caused it to be released now.

With that said, why should it matter that politics influenced Clarke to write the book when you believe the facts? This is just silly. "Well, gee, Bush completely ignored terrorism before 9/11, but since this truthful information was released with political intentions of getting a terrible president voted out of office, that just invalidates everything Clarke has brought to light!" How does this even begin to make sense?

But it starts to make even less sense.

Nearly three-fifths of those surveyed echoed the contention by Clarke that Bush placed a higher priority on invading Iraq than combating terrorism. And a smaller majority agreed with the charge by the onetime White House counterterrorism chief that Bush did not focus enough on the terrorist threat before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Again, the majority agrees that Bush sucks. But...

And despite the attention Clarke's charges have received, almost three-fifths of Americans said Bush's anti-terrorism and defense policies had made the nation more secure.

Argh! Even when faced with the facts, people still think Bush is doing a great job as far as terrorism is concerned! The mountain of evidence against this man is astounding: Clarke's alligations, al-Qa'ida's recent bombings, al-Qa'ida's ties to members of the Saudi royal family who are personal friends with the Bush family, Osama bin Laden has not been caught, there were no WMDs in Iraq, Saddam did not have connections to al-Qa'ida or 9/11, not to mention the chaos which happened in Iraq that's left 600 troops dead, 18,000 with medical evacuations, and possibly an impending civil war. How anybody can think Bush has made the country safer is beyond me. But even when faced with the facts, Americans don't seem to care. Why?

By 57% to 37%, those polled agreed with Clarke's contention that "President Bush was more focused on attacking Iraq than dealing with terrorism."

...Bush won more support for his policies on terrorism than any other issue measured. In the poll, 56% said they approved of his handling of the war on terrorism; 39% disapproved.

Anyone got a brick wall handy? I need to bash my head against something.