I had to rub my eyes when I saw the headline, just to make sure I really was seeing it. "Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches." All too often, we have to criticize the media for regurgitating talking points as news or presenting an ideologically-based opinion as a "side" of a story. But in this case, the AP gets it exactly right.

How frequently do we hear Bush claim that "some people" (implying "Democrats," naturally) think something utterly ridiculous, but that he thinks otherwise? It's an annoying little tactic of his, especially since he's never challenged on it. Even if someone did question him, he would of course back off of the assertion, claiming that he wasn't talking about any person in particular. It's the same basic tactic that had the administration implying that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and then claiming they never said it. They really have mastered the art of making vague assertions.

Apparently, we're not the only ones who find it annoying. The Associated Press today released a story examining this rhetorical device of Bush's. It may be the most damning critique I've seen in the media at any point during this administration. The article is an absolute must-read.

When the president starts a sentence with "some say" or offers up what "some in Washington" believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.

The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.

He typically then says he "strongly disagrees" -- conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.

Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed "critics," is just as problematic.

Because the "some" often go unnamed, Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio. Even so, "'some' suggests a number much larger than is actually out there," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as "a bizarre kind of double talk" that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion.

"It's such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people," Fields said. "All politicians try to get away with this to a certain extent. What's striking here is how much this administration rests on a foundation of this kind of stuff."

This is perhaps the one area in which the Bush administration has had the most success in controlling the debate. These endless implications have bled into the conventional establishment wisdom, leading even a number of Democrats to further his absurdist memes about their own party not being serious about national security. And since he won't directly say, "Howard Dean thinks X" or "Russ Feingold believes Y," it's more difficult to knock down the claim. After all, defending yourself against a criticism that wasn't necessarily leveled against you seems overly defensive.

As I said earlier, it's important to give the media credit where it's due. Rightist blogs are already attacking this article, saying that it reads like a Daily Kos diary. But demonization like that is just a sign of weakness and fear -- none of them actually argue against the facts laid out in the piece. The AP's quite a bit late in publishing this trenchant analysis. After all, this is not a new tactic Bush and the Republicans just started employing. But with such disturbingly manipulative rhetoric being thrown about in the debates over NSA spying, redeployment of our troops, relations with Iran, etc., it couldn't come at a better time.