Froomkin on Confidence

Dan Froomkin has a great post today on the collapse of Bush,immigration, and his support in general. But the key part of the post is his take on Bu$hCo and their absurd, unwarranted over-confidence in their own judgment and infallibility. They've been wrong on everything they've expounded on, and Froomkin weighs in:

Their Confidence is Meaningless

---

Bush and Vice President Cheney's optimistic predictions about the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular have proved to be almost completely and consistently wrong for years now. ("Last throes," anyone?)

Before the 2006 election, White House political guru Karl Rove was supremely self-assured in his public predictions of Republican victory.

White House spokesman Tony Snow recently assured the press corps that Bush had enough votes in the Senate on the immigration bill. "I'll see you at the bill signing," Bush himself told a skeptical journalist on June 11.

Bush and his staff's credibility regarding statements of "fact" is a frequent subject of debate. But their track record on predictions is something else entirely. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that those predictions are unreliable.

I mention this because Bush's core argument against a troop drawdown in Iraq -- something supported by a large majority of Americans -- is basically a prediction. As he put it again yesterday: "If we withdraw before the Iraqi government can defend itself, we would yield the future of Iraq to terrorists like al Qaeda -- and we would give a green light to extremists all throughout a troubled region. The consequences for America and the Middle East would be disastrous."

I really think the only place 'confidence' has any application to Bu$hCo is when you use it in the sentence: 'They're all a bunch of confidence men!'

When I first started the blog, the banner had my motto of 'Not always right, but never uncertain' in the masthead. I think they've gone me one better since they're always wrong, but never uncertain.