Capitol Hill Blue offers a tremendous take on the endless propoganda promoting George W.’s “strength” as a leader, from a viewpoint I hadn’t considered:
… One way to appreciate just what a colossal failure [Bush] has been is to imagine for a moment that he wasn’t a straight-talking, brush-clearing, football-loving fellow from the hardscrabble West Texas countryside, but was instead someone whose outward appearance didn’t lend itself so readily to projecting a superficial image of strength.
Imagine, if you will, how George W. Bush’s performance as commander in chief would be perceived if he happened to be a woman. To help this thought experiment along, let’s give him a woman’s name. Don’t think of him as “George,” think of him as “Hillary.”
Now imagine if Hillary had been president on Sept. 11, 2001. Suppose that, five years later, the man responsible for that attack was not only still alive and free, but was thumbing his nose at the United States via tape recordings that mocked America’s military power and national resolve. Would such a woman seem like a strong leader?
Imagine if Hillary was in the process of losing not one, but two, wars against miserable Third World countries whose combined armed forces didn’t equal a 50th of America’s military might. Would she still seem like an able commander in chief? How would Americans react to her repeated assertions that, despite her catastrophic record as a military leader, we could trust her to keep America safe? …
You can read the whole column here.