Actually I'd been joking when I guessed that Bush would accuse the Social Security Administration of holding "weapons of mass destruction." But according to this Boston Globe article, an Iraq style propaganda offensive IS part of the Bush plan to gut Social Security:
WASHINGTON -- The run-up to President Bush's plan to deal with Social Security is looking a lot like the run-up to his plan to deal with Saddam Hussein...
Much as the Iraq war was preceded by speeches designed to show Hussein in the most threatening light, the Bush economic summit seemed designed to dominate a slow news week with the idea that failing to deal with Social Security now will hurt the national economy.
"The time to start making sacrifices is now . . . so that the markets can have confidence that we're on a course that is going to avoid a train wreck," Bush said at the summit.
Still, the link between the current economy and a Social Security deficit that will begin to strike benefits in decades is every bit as speculative and theoretical as the link between Hussein and the war on terrorism in late 2002.
Now, the problem here is that you've STILL got people who believe the nonsense about Hussein and WMD (see Safire, Bill, for example--or, better yet, check out The Poorman's "edited" Safire column). Will the media actually study the facts and ask serious, genuine questions--or will Tim Russert turn it into a "Bush said, they said, what does Dr. Phil say?" circle jerk...?
Because, at this point, the spectacular failure--characterized by Bush as a "catastrophic success"--should give anyone pause when anyone in this administration opens their mouth. If they're willing to send mostly young men and women to their deaths for non-existent weapons, does anyone think they WOULDN'T be willing to make old people suffer--and maybe die--to further their domestic neo-con fantasies?