The schism is real, AND Karl Rove knows how to exploit it better than anyone else.

If Rove has any real "genius" it is that he knows how to use the Reality that he likes to disdain to further the aims of the newReality that he and his cabal are in the process of creating. Even now, they continue...

Are they at war with us, the people of the United States?

Simple answer is yes. They believe (falsely) that public opinion and faltering will loses wars. They are at war with American public opinion. They choose to believe (wrongly) this is the reason we were unable to achieve our goals in Vietnam.

Right in front of their nose but the truth is unthinkable for them. They prefer the myth that it is someone else's fault. The myth is that they think American military force solves many more problems than it actually can.

Orwell:

"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proven wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right... To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

Me, personally, I was lucky. I was lucky that I believed Hans Blix when he said he personally didn't think that Saddam Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction. I was lucky I believed Mohammed El Baradei when he said Saddam Hussein didn't have a nuclear weapons program in progress. I was very lucky that I knew about the religious factions in Iraq and how they were an explosive mix, and knew that none of the hijackers had any connection to Iraq.

I was lucky I knew that Saddam Hussein's people were trying to wipe out Ansar-al-Islam but couldn't due to a no-fly zone. I was lucky that I had already read in the paper that Saddam's police had riddled Abu Nidal with bullets.

Most of all, I was lucky that I knew that the "plans" for the "mobile biological weapons lab" that Colin Powell showed at the U.N. were created on contract from the U.S. defense department by a company owned by Dr. David Kay (he loves that Dr. stuff), and that David Kay had previously been kicked off the weapons inspection team by Scott Ritter, for possible CIA complicity.

So unlike an "expert", I was evaluating Powell's speech on its factuality, not on how "strongly" he delivered it, and whether he was still going when my popcorn ran out.

But because I disliked George W. Bush from back in the 1990's, distrusted him since November 2000, and thought he did a poor job on September 11th, while I was struggling to account for missing people and calm normally steady people's nerves, I guess I will have to accept that my judgment doesn't count because I disagreed with the war based of ideology.

Such crap. Really takes the culpa out of mea culpa, doesn't it?

For the warbot. I'll use that every day. :-)

Kitt, your reply

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.

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

No, I understood that "lucky" was meant to be ironic. I read that great and hilarious rebuttal that Digby brought to your attention. So, since we both read it you can assume, that on this day, we are approaching this subject with equal irony.

I also understood that since you had read Molly Ivin's writings about bush you were already in the 10% tile from the beginning. So was I. I didn't really need any convincing that Bush and his administration were liars and fools. I knew that. What I think I did need was for them to put their foot so far into their mouths that they would choke on it. That was, it seemed to me, what Powell did at the UN.

So, since the MSM, the undecideds and all the rest ate that up, I figured it was the best shot I had at that time to help people see how mislead they had been.

I knew that my post wasn't directly addressing the spirit of your irony, and the question you put to us. I just shot from the hip since what I had to say would certainly be in the general spirit of what we're conversing about here.

Still, probably good that you clarified just in case anyone, other than me, misunderstood you.

and one word only to describe the foreign policy "thinking" as it is presented to Americans on the news: melodrama!

In every case, no matter what the issue, the veroties and unities of melodrama are strictly adhered to.

And since this melodrama of foreign policy is of a piece with the melodrama which makes up American entertainment (the watching of which forms the bulk of the experiential process by which Americans comprehend the world, and each other), a seamless world of melodramatic nonsense is created. That's all there is to it.

Accusing the foreign policy "thinkers" of doing anything than trying to write a script for a "Die Hard Saving Private Ryan" movie is to give them much more credit than they deserve.

You might not agree, but every post from the trolls here is powerful evidence for my contention.

Well, Joan Quigley, for one, had a clue.

Who was Joan? Nancy's (and Ron's) astrologer. She never intended to tell her story publicly, but felt she had to, after (Don) Regan trashed her in his book. I came across Qigley's book about her experience as WH astrologer, "What does Joan say?," while working in a used book store a few years ago. It was a revelation.

It is always amusing to me when Republicans go on and on about what a great president Reagan was, and how pragmatic he was, and yet still had a vision. They always conveniently forget the fact that his wife employed an astrologer on his behalf, and according to Quigley, for very little money, considering the amount of time required on her part (pre-PC software applications that will do the calculations for you).

Forgetting about the astrology for a moment, Quigley actually had some influence (to hear her tell it) on Reagan's policies. At a minimum, she certainly had the big picture in mind when she advised him on his meetings with Gorbachev, etc.

One has to wonder if Laura had done the same for Bush, whether it might have made a bigger difference even than her ultimatum that is credited with getting him to stop drinking. Of course, she did not have the same incentive, since neither Bush nor anyone in his administration have ever been seriously injured by a would-be assassin. If anything he is himself the potential danger. To innocent reporters at photo-ops, Irish policemen, etc.

His own charmed life, however, has kept him safe from consequences.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Joan-Say-Astrologer/dp/1559720328