...I can vividly remember (not that long ago actually) when these same bloggers deemed George W. Bush "the greatest American president in history second only to Ronald Reagan" (which is actually a Steven Colbert lampoon yet, like all Steven Colbert lampoons, a perfect description of the far right mind-set).

But now that Bush has dismissed out of hand the WMD thing, they, in turn, have dismissed George W. out of hand.

I guess George W. has suddenly become too "reality based" for them.

They probably now consider George W. "too liberal" for their tastes and an "islamofacist sympathizer."

Anyway, I think it's obvious these war bloggers are going to play gotcha games with Iraq until the bitter end.

You also have to realize that no matter what happens concerning Iraq, the war bloggers will claim victory.

They will attack those giving realistic assessments of Iraq as "out of touch elitists."

And the reason you don't know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, 'lost' his classified reports...

Based on the administration's deplorable record of losing important information, this aspect of the story seems quite plausible. Though I'm not sure what those scare quotes are meant to imply; is the author suggesting the reports were not actually lost? That's a stretch. Even the Bush administration would be hard pressed to lose non-existent reports. Wouldn't they? OMG!!!

He depended on the whackos to get him this far, now they've turned on him.

It does bring up an interesting point, however. A few days back Glenn wrote about how the 29-percenters were all about supporting Bush, not about supporting Iraq. In other words, if Bush came out tomorrow for leaving Iraq, that's what they would support tomorrow all prior statements on the subject notwithstanding.

However this article seems to contradict that summary. It is somewhat reassuring to see that the conservative monolith is not so monolithic. Let them suffer their own pet fringe the way we progressives had to deal with all the hippies with their Books of Mao.

I guess that if you are ideologically opposed to recreational drugs, this is what you get.

The Bush administration has long since given up covering up its errors in Iraq; but if, say, WMDs have been moved to Syria we should welcome a fact-finding trip there by the Cheney family.

I have a simple, all purpose question for these leftover truebeliever neocons: What color is the sky in your world?

...You can't help noticing that being a global warming denier is part of the war blogger doctrine (as Glenn pointed out the pro-WMD English woman is an avid global warming denier).

I think some of the less unhinged war bloggers actually believe in global warming, but it's impossible for them to admit because of Al Gore.

Meaning the majority (if not the vast majority) of wingnuts do not believe in global warming for one reason and one reason only: Because Al Gore does.

It's happened before, repeatedly, when the right wing runs into serious trouble. It's already been noted that the John Birch Society identified Eisenhower as a Communist dupe. But several decades later, the JBS graduated to seeing Communism itself as merely a front for the Illuminati and other secret societies. (The Illuminati conspiracy was itself a right wing fabrication to explain away the French Revolution as not being the result of decades of monarchical/aristocratic misrule.)

So, now what we're seeing is not really an abberation at all. It's simply happened too often on the right. Because they need to have been right about WMDs in Iraq, they need to have some sort of explanation, and given the amount of support this story has already gotten, it bids fair to become the official wingnut version, which the 30-percenters of future generations will come to regard as gospel.

I am interested in knowing more about how her global warming denial fits into the mix. Is the IPCC controlled by China, for example? The Soviets? And once global warming becomes utterly undeniable even by them, will it suddenly turn out that it was all a plot to decieve us by presenting such phony evidence that we never suspected it was real?

Down in the dark

As light quickly dims

And the cold is living

Like a hand on your heart

------------------------

What terrible thoughts

Grip the steele stalwart

How things once askewed

Are straight in the dark

------------------------

I come to believe

Not what that I see

But that which is mine

So deep in the dark

...man these crazies are just totally wacked...

I generally don't bother going on right-wing blogs anymore. Their method of argument, when not just trying to insult you off the website, is to never concede a point. How can you have discussions with people who believe (or at least assert) that there WERE weapons of mass destruction, that the U.S. is winning in Iraq, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were tied in with Al Qaeda, etc.? Their opinions are not subject to any kind of rational examination. It is like religious dogma for them and they aren't going to change their minds.

You have to believe that the Bush administration would choose the "There were no WMD" lie over the "There were WMD, but the evil liberals caused them to be stolen by Syria" lie.

After all, the story requires an administration lie. Can anyone believe they would choose a lie that leaves them responsible for an unjustifiable war over a lie that justifies their actions?

I've got it, I know how they will keep Bush inside the neocon deadender cosmology on this one. Ya see, Bush is only SAYING there was no WMD, it is just a cover story; see, it puts the enemy off the the scent. That way it just LOOKS like he is in on the conspiracy so that soon, oh, very soon, one of the real conspirators will think he's one of them and tell him where the WMD really are so we can invade there, prove the truth and Bush will a hero forever and ever! See? He's selflessly (though temporarily) sacrificing his honor but in service of a higher cause. Hey, jack Bauer does this sort of thing every week so how can this not be true?