made me realize that I had not really explained why I assumed I would have to be labeled an "ideologue." It's because from the beginning of Bush's administration, I really didn't have much of an open mind left about how he would govern. I will admit, though, that it increasingly became clear it would be much worse than I could have imagined. So, by the time 9/11 occurred I was already in the other camp, and was one of the 10% who did not "rally 'round" the president after his photo-ops at Ground Zero.

I thought even then, before any of the evidence came out, that he had probably not been holding down the fort as he should. [That was based on what I had read about his repeated failures in business, and his early political life.] Sure enough, we later found out that he could only ascribe the PDB and other warnings to CYA...

So, I cannot point to a body of (then) current evidence or intellectual "thought" to say how I made up my mind. I had already made up my "mind" about him based on his personal history, and my own knowledge about how little people really change, mid-life religious conversions notwithstanding.

I never really got to see the whole Powell presentation (perhaps it was only shown in depth on cable?), but apparently that had an effect on a lot of people. A friend of mine who has less time than I do to follow news online, etc. was pretty outraged by that episode.

I guess what gripes me is that Ignatieff's groupings still really only allow for "professional" opinions, or for those in think tanks, even though he does acknowledge the understanding of the average bus driver. People like me are left completely out of his picture, even though we can see/hear/smell the trainwreck long before it arrives. Reading novels, especially Edith Wharton, George Eliot, and the like, will sharpen the mind's ability to recognize the inevitable as it comes charging upon you. ;~)

[My use of "lucky" about myself was meant to be ironic.]

Just to be clear, that is simply a c/p from the blog, not my text. But drational's thesis had absolutely not occurred to me, which is why I like the piece. Here's another snip from it:

Then last week, after months of slow and steady negotiation on FISA update, the Administration needed it passed immediately. Importantly the FISA update does not make purely domestic spying legal- the FISA update, along with the selectively declassified "TSP", involves warrantless wiretapping of US Citizens only when they are communicating with foreigners. Thus, the update almost certainly does not legalize the illegality Comey et al were prepared to resign over.

drational's interpretation is different from Glenn's, I believe. If I remember Glenn's segment on FSTV correctly, he is clearly convinced that the changes do make domestic spying tenable. It also seems that drational's interpretation differs from others besides Glenn.

Seeking clarity,

As Pinella wryly notes: "Condi Rice was a Russian specialist."

Indeed she was. And yet, for all her Serious Scholarly Expertise, Establishment kudos & doctoral dissertations on matters Soviet, she remained in Foreign Policy Cabal-lockstep about the imminent threat, the awesome capability of the ultra scary Evil Empire. Then, completely contrary to seriously expert, scholarly wisdom, the USSR imploded with scarcely a whimper. DOH! Who knew? Apparently no-one, like Condi, who should have.

To have been so completely wrong about the much vaunted area of your expertise, might have been humbling for many, but not our Condi. She hitched her stunning lack of prescience to the idiotic Reagan-Defeated-Russia bandwagon & became a founding member of the scholarly, serious (& spookily Star Trek) Vulcans whose membership included every expert who'd ever been extremely wrong about anything important for decades. (Except, of course, for Kissinger cuz, as we all know he talked funny.)

As the irritatingly popular Clinton/Christopher/Albright team continued, more or less, to do everything everyone had ever done earlier, the bitter Vulcans & their Neo-Con Stormtroopers plotted how to turn the mildly resented American Empire into a universally reviled Unilateral SuperPower. Putting the "ink" back into Foreign Policy ThinkTanks, they produced scholarly manifestos about how to spend zillions offending everyone & impatiently tapped their Blahniks & Ferragamos, awaiting Presidential reply. Distracted by Monica-gate, vast-right-wing conspiracies, soaring popularity, record growth & budget surplus, Clinton confirmed his un-Seriousness with silence.

Fast forward to Campaign 2000 & the Consistently Wrong Condi was summoned to Crawford for a Foreign Policy Vulcan MindMeld with dyslexic Dubya. Sadly the process worked in reverse & Neo-Condi lost significant brain function. This loss is perhaps best illustrated in the sole discussion Dubya reportedly EVER had with anyone about whether or not he should invade Iraq:

"What do you think?" the president asked Rice. "Should we do this?". He meant war. He had never before pressed her for her answer.

"Yes," she said. "Because it isn't American credibility on the line, it is the credibility of everybody that this gangster can yet again beat the international system." As important as credibility was, she said, "Credibility should never drive you to do something you shouldn't do." But this was much bigger, she advised, something that should be done. "To let this threat in this part of the world play volleyball with the international community this way will come back to haunt us someday. That is the reason to do it." Bob Woodward: Plan of Attack

Let's put this in context. This is the highest echelon of serious, Establishment foreign policy expertise & scholarship, advising the president on the most momentous decision that can be taken: to go, or not go to war. In giving that advice Rice cravenly cites the "credibility" of the "international community" as if it was even remotely supportive of an invasion. In fact the UN Security Council, the General Assembly, IAEA, UNMOVIC & the vast majority of the planet's population was adamantly opposed to the Iraq invasion & in favour of continued weapons inspections. Rice's argument that the "credibility" of the "international community" would somehow be undermined by non-invasion, flew in the face of every known or knowable fact on the matter. This is the (uncontested) lofty, scholarly, serious standard of foreign policy advice given to the leader of the free world about the most important decision he can make.

By contrast the foreign policy hypotheticals of Obama/Power seem refreshingly rational & pragmatic.