For the last 6 years or so, we’ve been subject to the easiest, most simple to grasp math I have ever encountered: Bush Math. It’s simple. One thing is completely congruous (or equal to the other.) It’s very easy to understand, and can be used to prove many points. Best of all, the genius of its simplicity makes anyone who argues against it look stupid — like they have to make things so complicated that one thing cannot directly equal another. Dolts! Here are some of my favorite examples:

1. Against the Iraq war = Non patriotic
2. Against the Iraq war = not supportive of US troops
3. For non-traditional families = anti-family
4. Iraq = terrorist responsible for 9/11

And then, inexplicably, came yesterdays change in the Bush Math. One thing is not necessarily congruent to the other. One thing does not equal the other? Then what does it equal? Are they saying there could possibly be two things that cannot be connected with an equals sign?

Ok, so here it is, the new Bush Math as used yesterday:

1. More jihadists caused by the war in Iraq does not necessarily equal more terrorists

What? Excuse me? This is a non sequitur. It’s way too complicated. If more jihadists does not equal more terrorist, could that possibly mean that against the war in Iraq does not necessarily mean you are not supportive of US troops? Can someone who is for non-traditional families also be pro-family? Oh gosh, this is really shaking things up. Will Bush revisit his old math and apply the rules of this new, some would say “fuzzy” math? Umm… I suspect not.