As I've posted, I've read a number of books on the "war on terrorism" and the war in Iraq. They include the Woodward series including, lately, "State of Denial", as well as, lately, "Cobra II" and "Against All Enemies".

What I've read are what seem to be well researched books with well interviewed principals by what seem to be responsible people. While none of them are flattering to the Bush administration, none of them set out to be damning. The facts seem to lead to those conclusions, as do the statements of the principles. Maybe the Conservative Clarke set out to be critical, but he was an insider, observing directly, with a rightist bias.

I've had one rightist say that he wasn't "going to let Woodward and Clarke tell him how to think". One step short of book burning, if you think about it, if you believe that books have the power to tell people how to think. No Conservative has suggested any other history of the Bush administrations efforts in these areas, though, and I suspect there isn't one which would be flattering. (Which makes sense - when you are looking at a pile of manure it's hard to avoid the conclusion that something took a dump. What they do is try to convince us that even though it stinks to high heaven like manure, steams like manure and is at body temperature it's really chocolate ice cream.) To my knowledge, no rightist has read any of those books.

It gets more and more frustrating to read posts here from rightists who operate from bumper stickers, Limbaugh's talking points and anecdotal blogs. Not even headlines, as those are grim. After bad news there's a wait for them until the "big boys" publish the spin. They have not read the histories, and they can't.

They're walking up the down escalator. If they can't run form some lie and hop on another untruth, stepping up to the next fiction, all of which sink from out from under them to be replaced by another report of "progress". If they stop running they'll be dumped back into the deadly pit of reality, and have to admit to having been grievously wrong.

Which isn't possible. They are psychologically unable to admit to substantive mistakes, as we've seen.

Arf