Excellent post Kriselda, very imporant information and powerful evidence about image-mongering. I don't agree with all conclusions, but that isn't the point - thanks!

I understand and agree with much of what's presented here, because there really is a tremendous amount of prepping going on to ensure the President is presented in a very specific light. I'm glad to see you point out the obvious partisan nature of the two Bush-related sites, but you really weaken other portions of your argument by using as your "information" source the blogs of non-news personnel (differentstrings.info and uggabugga.blogspot.com.)

General Blogcritics comment: If you really want people to believe and care about your story, you need to find legitimate news sources for this information and use them, otherwise the credibility of your piece goes down the drain - opinion piece or not. This is my biggest problem with what's posted on Blogcritics - that much of it is based in opinion-derived rhetoric without a shred of evidence behind it, yet it is presented as fact.

Thank you, Tom, for your comments, and I undertstand your concern about the non-news links. In both cases, however, the entry that is being referenced has within it the links to legitimate news sources. Just as an FYI, "different strings" is my own blog, where I first posted this entry. The links there are to previous entries where I had referenced the issues being mentioned, and those have links to the original news sources I had used when writing it.

The Uggabugga entry I linked to provides further links to 11 stories showing where Bush made statements connecting Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I chose to do it that way, rather than linking to the individual articles, both to give credit to Uggabugga for having taken the time to put the links together, and also because I didn't see a way to add 11 links to the post without really wrecking the flow of the text. If anyone has a suggestion on how to do that better - or how to clarify that the blog entries being linked to have the links to the news sources in them, I'd be very appreciative!

Your concern, however, is valid and for just that reason, I usually don't blog about a news item unless I can find a good news source for it.

Holy crap, the president is image conscious! Stop the frickin' presses.

This stuff about Bush lying is mostly nonsense. Now, any politician at his level will be spinning and shading. That's politics. But I've yet to see a real outright lie. Bush couldn't get away with it even if he wanted to.

You might accuse the administration of overemphasizing links between Hussein and al-Qaeda, for example, but they clearly had some rudimentary co-operation and common interests. That's not lying. Saddam clearly supported Arab terrorists directly and openly, which are all interwoven.

Lots of people have gone on about the "lose the tie" thing, as if it were somehow disreputable or scandalous. How? In what way is this bad?

I may be wrong but isn't self image one of the big things in politics. Clinton had his youth and a strange appeal to women, President Bush doesn't have either youth or misplaced sex appeal so he takes other avenues. He does have a strong foreign policy that actually persues issues that are vital to national interest instead of closing his eyes and praying that nothing bad happens during his term. I don't think the links between OBL and Hussein are direct but look at it this way....if your house was robbed, would you hunt only after the thief that robbed you and let all the other thieves go since they aren't the one that stole from you? Of course not, and just because Hussein wasn't directly behind the Twin Towers attacks didn't make him any less of an international threat. If the war on terror incidentally creates a few photo ops to aid in his re-elction(and God, I hope he does) then so be it. Rock on with your bad self MR President!