It’s a sign of just how politically divided the USA is that many of the political battles going on aren’t about facts but the valuation of those facts. For instance, the invasion of Iraq. It wasn’t an imminent threat, the rational observers all agree on that fact. What’s disputed is whether that makes the invasion imprudent / improper / illegal.
I’m reminded of this by the latest Kerry flap which concerns his claimed support from various unnamed “foreign leaders”. OK, despite his lack of evidence I’m completely willing to believe Kerry on this. The real issue is that Kerry obviously views that as a positive indication, while we members of the VRWC view it as a negative indication. Same fact, very different views of the implications of that fact. At some point you can only preach to the choir because it’s not possible to change someone’s mind on this by arguing the facts if you already agree on that aspect.