[gcruse]

Today leftists live in a world constructed of irrational
declarations which is held together only by their own
unanimous suspension of disbelief.

Liberalism is a  religion?  Could be, could be....

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Good job.

[ppaul]

What is Truth?

[USMMA_83]

Well, there's fact and then there's truth. Truth changes constantly.

[fporretto]

Much of what you cite here, Adam, isn't "simple" deceit. It's defense in depth against a surging conservative opposition.

I've written about Zero-Issue Politics before -- mounting opposition simply because the idea or candidate comes from the other party rather than yours. Given that the political Left is everywhere on the defensive today, that it has no rational excuse for its many failures, yet lacks both the moral courage and the strength of stomach to say "We were wrong" -- about anything -- we can expect its pattern of distortion, denial and evasion to continue and accelerate for some time to come. And of course, as "the best defense is a good offense," we can also expect the Left to take every opportunity, no matter how thin, to denigrate and defame the spokesmen and candidates of the Right. To the extent they can get us defending ourselves, they'll get a respite from having to defend themselves.

Pretty tawdry, I know. But keep this in mind: sometimes it works. The American people have been fooled before, as little as we like to admit it.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

[firewalk]

bttt

[JohnGalt]

Well, maybe one serious person. James Bowman, a war supporter, at the neoconservative American Specator, offered this explanation. I suggest the spin doctors drop the hyperbole-- they are making fools of themselves.

http://www.spectator.org/article.asp?art_id=2003_4_3_23_12_45

Saddam's Honor
By James Bowman
Published 4/4/2003

...We may yet find the nerve gases and the anthrax that President Bush promised us were there, but even if we do, I believe that it is not improbable that Saddam Hussein would have refused to give them up even if he hadn't had any. The point isn't that he wanted these weapons for their own sake, either to use or to threaten to use. He just couldn't be seen to accede to the demands, still less to the threats, of an outside power. This is because of the way an honor culture works. To see what I mean, consider Saddam's behavior in his interview with Dan Rather.