"THERE'S NOTHING PARTIAL ABOUT THEIR EFFORT TO UNDO ROE V. WADE"

That was said by John Kerry shortly after Bush signed that egregious law banning so-called "partial-birth abortion."

It's incumbent upon us to fight the language manipulation and framing that I and many others have recently written about, in the context of this bill, so I will never again use that phrase. To repeat, there is no birth involved, nowhere near birth. Every sentient being knows this.

Apparently everyone except our president and his followers. They really do give sentient beings a bad name.

He said yesterday during the bill-signing circus that "For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches away from birth, while the law looked away." And later he said "The best case against (it) is a simple description of what happens and to whom it happens. It involves the delivery of a live boy or girl, and a sudden, violent end to that life."

In Bush's State of the Union address this year, he said the bill would "protect infants at the very hour of their birth." At least he's consistent.

The signing of this bill will give religious conservatives the Big O, for sure. "Bush...will see his stock among them rise even higher for succeeding where other other Republicans failed, though officials in his reelection campaign were quick to insist that the president did not sign the (bill) for political reasons," says the Boston Globe.

Oh so?

I have no doubt Bush believes abortion is wrong.

But it's simply not possible that Bush doesn't know the facts about this procedure. None of what he said is true. None of it.

Just like it's not possible that he doesn't know the facts about global warming, or the critical role of condoms in preventing deaths from AIDS. Yet he denies global warming is a problem, and censors his own government's reports that it is; he has any mention of condoms removed from the CDC website, because they don't protect and lead to promiscuity, he says.

So why did he say those things about this procedure? Why does the leader of the free world continue to twist and distort and, yes, lie, about such profound concerns if not to pander to the radical right constituency he desperately needs for reelection?

That's not "political reasons?"