I've nothing to add to Glenn's analysis, save to wonder how any human being with even the thinnest grasp of reality could possibly believe this rubbish.

"Divine Whatever" as the ultimate arbitor?

"Will trumps wealth"?

"History will judge..."?

Per your colleague, Sidney Blumenthal:

As witnesses were trooping to the stand in the federal courthouse in Washington to testify in the case of United States v. I. Lewis Libby, and the Washington Post was publishing its series on the squalid conditions that wounded Iraq war veterans suffer at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center while thousands more soldiers were surging into Baghdad, President Bush held one of his private book club sessions that Karl Rove organizes for him at the White House. Rove picks the book, invites the author and a few neoconservative intellectual luminaries, and conducts the discussions. For this Bush book club meeting, the guest was Andrew Roberts, an English conservative historian and columnist and the author of "The Churchillians" and, most recently, "A History of the English-Speaking People Since 1900."

The subject of Winston Churchill inspired Bush's self-reflection. The president confided to Roberts that he believes he has an advantage over Churchill, a reliable source with access to the conversation told me. He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill. Bush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God.

Lots of people tend to write in about every one of Glenn's posts, but not many people seem to "digg" them at digg.com.

If you like this (or any other) post and think more people should read it, digg.com is a great way to bring national attention. The link is right there at the bottom of the article -- use it!

Neo-conservativism is a dangerous ideology. Of course, we already knew that.

Bush really is the perfect mark. He is vain, stunningly ignorant and therefore easy to manipulate. It's depressing to read about this stuff.

The "lessons" the neo-cons taught Bush are transparently emotional manipulation. They are strategically puffing his ego and questioning his manhood.

I think Glenn should add a scary music soundtrack to the post. And darkened, freeze-framed photos of the Evil Emperor himself, Norman Podhoretz, whispering in Stelzer's ear.

I am particularly interested about the second lesson:

> Whereas World War II was almost over before

> Americans saw the first picture of a dead soldier,

> today the steady drumbeat of media pessimism and

> television coverage are sapping the West's will.

I cannot speak to actual photography. If you review the propoganda posters being used during WWII, there is no shortage of pictures of drowning sailors or paratroopers hanging lifelessly from trees, with the admonition "Someone Talked!" or "Finish The Job" underneath. The WWII generation might not have been fully aware of all the many ways in which our troops died, but to say that it would have sapped their will to complete the mission is laughable. You worry about that only when the cause in itself does not have sufficient support.

The stakes are very, very high now -- at what point has this dumb and demented president done enough to be impeached??

He has faith in God, Bush explained, but Churchill, an agnostic, did not. Because he believes in God, it is easier for him to make decisions and stick to them than it was for Churchill. Bush said he doesn't worry, or feel alone, or care if he is unpopular. He has God.

On the subject of Bush and God, don't miss Bill Cusack's "Is Bush's God an Idiot?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-cusack/is-bushs-god-an-idiot_b_43349.html

Nothing matters -- not the disapproval of the American people of the President's actions nor rising anti-Americanism around the world.

This term “anti-Americanism” is misleading when used by the neo-cons. What the world is against is Bush’s imperial neo-con policies, not against the American people themselves (who are also against those same policies).

What they’ve done is define “America” (and "Americanism") in terms support of Bush policies, so from their viewpoint anyone who disagrees with them is ultimately “anti-American.”

So, using their meaning of the term, there is also rising “anti-Americanism” at home and the real enemy of the neo-cons is the majority of the American people who are the only ones who might possibly prevent their agenda.

I’ve long noticed how “conservatives” define themselves as “America” a dishonest rhetorical device that automatically impugns the motives and patriotism of those who disagree with them.

Limbaugh terms himself “America’s anchorman” even though the vast majority of Americans never listen to him and hold his views in contempt. Limbaugh might be the anchorman of the 18% of the public who still supports Cheney, but that’s hardly “America.”

This is just one of the “noble lies and pious frauds” the neo-cons and their enablers use to keep people in a stupor and stifle debate. And sadly, a lot of that lie is adopted by the by what they call the “left-liberal media” – yet another one of their pious frauds.

What they’ve done is define “America” (and "Americanism") in terms support of Bush policies, so from their viewpoint anyone who disagrees with them is ultimately “anti-American.”

Yes, just as anti-Likudnik policies = "anti-Israel" and "anti-semitic."

Most people when they hear voices in their head that guide them to do things that anyone with a shred of decency can plainly see are evil, are dealt with in a humane but firm manner.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment

What scares me most about the viewpoints you so aptly paraphrase is that I have no idea what "Victory" could possibly mean in this context but I don't see it as something that can be accomplished without wholesale slaughter first. After all, if anybody who thinks ill of the US is the enemy, then our work is cut out for us!

God didn't tell him to put troops in harm's way in Iraq; belief in Him only goes so far as to inform the president that there is good and evil. It is then his job to figure out how to promote the former and destroy the latter. And he is confident that his policies are doing just that.

That's about the creepiest thing I've ever read.