Re-posted from other thread:

They apply the same logic to Iraq that they do to global warming and to teaching sex education in school. First, they come up with a conclusion: "We will win in Iraq if we fight hard enough", "Teenagers will remain abstinent until marriage if we don't teach them about birth control", "Global Warming is an environmental myth". Then they simply repeat that conclusion and use any facts available to support it, whether those facts really do support it or not. If facts exist that obviously support some other conclusion, they dismiss them and work hard to damage the credibility of whomever claims they are true. It's totally acceptable to make up facts, as long as they support the conclusion. The results are everything. They believe that reality is malleable, and that they can define their own reality.

The frustrating bit is that it often works. There are a lot of authoritarian people out there who really want to believe that their leaders are telling the truth. These people are very good at compartmentalizing information so that they can believe wrong and even contradictory things. Kagan is one of their trusted sources. What he says isn't true, but it will be repeated and quoted in the right and will become true in the minds of the right wing followers. They will continue to demand that we do what is necessary to win in Iraq, because "we WILL win in Iraq if we fight hard enough". At some point, the left will succeed in getting the troops out of Iraq, and the left will be blamed for losing the war by pulling out too early, because "WE WILL WIN IF WE FIGHT HARD ENOUGH", so the only was we can lose is by giving up. This will feed the meme of "liberals don't have the stomach to fight" and "liberals are weak on national security" and, ultimately, lead to increased support for conservatives during times of national crisis.

This means that no matter what happens, the right wing wins. If they miraculously establish a democratic, pro-west government in Iraq, they claim victory. If they keep fighting until Democrats force them to stop throwing soldiers at a futile cause, then the failure is the fault of the Democrats. It's a great system for ensuring political victory for your party. You just have to not care how many soldiers and Iraqi civilians die in the process.

This administration believes that it is on a mission, and it is their duty to achieve certain goals. Congress and the American people simply don't know everything the administration does, but if we did, we would approve of their actions. Of course, telling us would endanger national security. So they have to lie to Congress and the American people so that they can do what is necessary without breaching national security.

...but I find the talk page at least as useful as the actual article. That's where you get the spin, and if you can sort through enough spin it's possible to get closer to the truth. The links are useful, too, and it's a good place to look for information about current events. Nowadays, I'm not sure what "the truth" is anymore. You can't always trust the major media players to get even the simplest story right. At least the editors of Wikipedia make an effort at actually providing neutral information.

"I think that funding contraception to prevent millions of African's from dying of AIDS is a great idea, but if I say so the right wing fundamentalists won't vote for me so I'm not going to admit it in public and I'm not going to support it if I'm voted in as President".

You seem to have started a rumor that Obama supporters trashed Sharpton to the New York Post. I saw no evidence for this in the article by Ms. Dickerson, nor did I see evidence for this in the New York Post article (which actually claimed that their source was a Clinton supporter). I can't say that I particularly respect the credibility of the Post, but at least they claimed to have a source. Ms. Dickerson is making accusations with no sourcing whatsoever. And yet there are people here buying her claim that Obama must "respond" to his "henchman"'s purported attacks on Sharpton.

Put up or shut up. Please either provide support for Ms. Dickerson's accusations or retract this article and print an apology. If she has evidence that Obama supporter's are behind this, then present it. Otherwise, please stop publishing the kind of unsupported innuendo I expect to see in right-wing rags.

His advice was often designed to feed right wing economic myths. He disagreed with their party line just often enough to establish himself with the media as an independent voice, then proceeded to back them whenever it was really important that he do so. I stopped listening to him years ago, because I knew that whatever he said was going to hurt the middle class and help the wealthy.

I'm glad I did, because a mortgage broker tried to talk my husband into a discounted ARM when we bought an new home 2 years ago. We had a great credit rating, enough income to pay the monthly payments easily, a hefty down payment (from the sale of our home), and qualified for an astonishingly low fixed interest rate - but he still tried to talk us into an adjustable loan that would have given us lower payments initially and probably resulted in a foreclosure, or at least a lot of financial pain, eventually. I wonder how many people took Greenspan's advice instead of listening to their own common sense? I only wish there were some way to hold him accountable, but I know that he will not suffer financially for the bad advice he gave, and I doubt his conscience will trouble him in the least.