Too bad he came across as deeply in denial and... barking mad.

Thinks he's Jack Bauer, eh? Ticking time bomb! Ticking time bomb! We don't torture!!!!! We're all gonna DIE!

Needs to take his meds is what he needs.

Reminded me a bit of Martha Mitchell back in the Nixon days. Remember her?

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

Course she was a truth-teller too -- as well as out of her mind.

Their (i.e., the hard-core 20% Bush followers ed.) refusal to recognize reality is precisely what is going to ensure their destruction as a political movement -- GG

A question to ask is whether the "hard-core 20%" of the Republican party represents the majority position within the Republican party. As much as I tend to believe that the Republican party is corrupt to its core, there are still examples of individual integrity within the party that shine brightly, especially where regard for the rule of law as expressed in the Constitution is concerned.

If the hard-core 20% represents the majority position within the Republican party, then there is no hope and the sooner Republicans are removed from any form of political dominance, the better. If, on the other hand, the Republican party can find the means and discipline to bring people of integrity (like David Iglesias) into positions of leadership, the Republican Party may have a future.

And rational conservatives who view "conservatism" as a set of political beliefs -- rather than a cult of reality-denying Loyalty to the Leader -- recognize those facts already.

I have often harped on the fact here that ending the war will require alliances that might not then survive after success of the endeavor. This is to be expected. Someone in the last thread, differentiated between those who oppose the war because it was immoral and illegal and those who oppose it because they don't like losing. If ending the war means embracing some of the latter then so be it. Job 1 should be to stop the killing. We can save debating health insurance and social security for MUCH later.

(1) Is what he's saying substantively true?

(2) If so, why didn't he resign?

It seems to me that some (incl Huffington) unthinkingly do republicans' work for them by treating the second question out of order.

I don’t know where Perle was on 9/11, but it doesn’t change what he said that day (quoted in the Washington Post). Maybe he was on a “conference call” from Europe (instead of in Washington), but it hardly changes that immediately on 9/11 he and Kristol were blaming Iraq. The Washington Post:

Evening of 9-11 Richard Perle claims Attacks linked to "one or more large governments"

"This could not have been done without help of one or more governments," Perle told The Washington Post on Sep. 11. "Someone taught these suicide bombers how to fly large airplanes. I don't think that can be done without the assistance of large governments." ….

Evening of 9-11 Ex CIA Chief James Woolsly and Neocon William Kristol blame Iraq for attacks on numerous TV interviews

”[I]t's not impossible that terrorist groups could work together with the government...the Iraqi government has been quite closely involved with a number of Sunni terrorist groups and -- on some matters -- has had direct contact with (Osama) bin Laden,” [Woolsey] told one anchorman in a series of at least half a dozen national television appearances on Sep. 11 and 12.

That same evening, Kristol echoed Woolsey on National Public Radio. ”I think Iraq is, actually, the big, unspoken sort of elephant in the room today. There's a fair amount of evidence that Iraq has had very close associations with Osama bin Laden in the past, a lot of evidence that it had associations with the previous effort to destroy the World Trade Center (in 1993).

http://smartpolitics.tribe.net/thread/0489de46-55c5-47ee-906c-aefebe2c1b20

I've been watching the leaders of the Republican party and the neoconservative movement lie continually for the last ten years or so. And yet, hearing that John Hinderaker actually said, in a public forum:

Not a single instance of corruption has been unearthed.

I had to stop and stare for a bit. That's an amazing thing to say.

Your right. I saw him with a Tom Brokaw feed...

Why don't we see? Is all American and g-8's overstuffed on bad pasta? I lie too, but only to say I will never turn on the TV, radio, or computer. The lies they tell are gangrene pasta salad?

Before I unPlug this machine, I ask them pro Bush-Co persons, "What will you say while fighting to grasp a last gasp of bedridden breath?" I don't wish to be there. Sorrow!

You said "The hard-core 20% Bush followers (the ones who not only approve of the Leader's performance but who strongly approve) simply do not live in reality, literally. They want to believe that Americans support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, so no polling data, election slaughters, or anything else will ever convince them otherwise.

Ultimately, not only is it impossible for anyone to force them to recognize reality, it is also -- at this point -- undesirable. Their refusal to recognize reality is precisely what is going to ensure their destruction as a political movement, and at this point, given that our troops are inevitably staying in Iraq through the end of the Bush presidency, there is no higher priority than that."

I'm a little alarmed about the idea that one out of every five Americans follow a corrupted worldview. I do not see this as a fringe group. We're talking about over one million people. Revolutions have been caused by smaller groups.

I believe that we must work harder at either changing their worldview, or changing its focus away from the neoconservative value set, if this country is going to survive as a positive political entity.

Its really quite simple. Anyone who is caught in an "instance of corruption" automatically and immediately ceases to have ever been associated with the administration. George Orwell wrote the handbook. Hindsighteraker is merely putting it into practice. For further reading see: "memory hole", "doublethink" and "rewriting history".