Isn't it just lovely how this administration will choose either to ignore reality as the rest of us see it, or they attempt to specifically cite reality to prove a point....? Example of the former is easy: Cheney in VP debate saying he never implied Saddam was connected to 9-11 (we all smile -- in horror -- knowing it's a bald-face lie, who does he think he's kidding?, etc.). An example of the latter can be found at Talkingpointsmemo.com:

When trying to refute Robertson's claim, Karen Hughes told the Associated Press, "Obviously, we already had casualties in Afghanistan at the time. If you look at that, that (the comment) was not consistent with what was going on."

In other words, Hughes is arguing that the president couldn't have said such a thing because such a statement wouldn't have been consistent with the reality that everyone could see in front of them.

I just love Hughes' "obviously" -- a subtly barbed jab at us, implying so much with this administration is obvious, right in front of us, easily understood based on real-life events. What a joke.

As I said, the fact is they zig-zag to and fro, citing reality and then more often ignoring it completely, whatever's necessary at the time to desperately prove a point -- and hopefully move on.

And we're to have potentially four more years of this?