In A Perfect World

The thing is, I wholeheartedly agree with these sentiments. I've always said that overthrowing Saddam was a good thing. I've never argued, as did some stupid or deluded fools, that Saddam was never a problem. I've never called the soldiers criminals or etc., excepting those involved in actual criminal acts such as Abu Gharib. And yes, it would be a good thing if all the name calling, the backbiting and the useless recriminations would stop. And condemning the morons who feel innocent blood is oil for their evil machine is the least we should do.

However, there is a problem there. We have in office an administration that has decided time and again that opposition to their actions - good ones, bad ones, incredibly stupid ones - is equivalent to and tantamount to treason, sedition and aiding the enemy. (All actions as well, but let's just focus on Iraq and its problems.) Any opposition, from the ones that ARE stupid and anti-American to the ones that have reasoned arguments and correct facts - are simply lumped into the most negative category possible.

Forget the whole adrenalin thing in most people that finds it hard to make nice with the other side as the other side continually calls you names at the peace table. Skip over the fact that, to date, the Decider-in-Chief has refused to listen to any other side at all and feels he hasn't messed up at all with anything.

The major problem with trying to be logical and reasonable in debates with people who refuse to be logical and reasonable is...it doesn't work. Try debating a true believer in IDiocy. Doesn't matter how many times you show a shortcoming in their theory, faith sustains them. They just know they're right and any evidence to the contrary is null, white noise in the brain. Faith overrides all. In the case of the Admin, it's faith in their infallibility - Shakespeare would have called in o'erweening pride - overrides any facts they find inconvenient.

As a guideline for how liberals would do things in Iraq if they take control of the Presidency, a statement is perfect - it's what the Democrats need to get away from the central plank of their strategy being an empty space of "We're not them." I support that without reservations. But to say, as the quotes in the above links do, that we need to only focus in Iraq and not domestic factors about the debate - can't be done.

Liberals: "Here's how we think Iraq should go..."

Administration flack: "TRAITOR! AL-QAEDA SUPPORTER! LIAR!"

Liberals: "...we need to..."

AF: "TREASON! AIDER AND ABETTOR!"

I'm sorry, but pointing out the way Administration treats their opponents has to be done as part and parcel of the Iraq debate, because it will be when the opponents get tarred. We can't hold a debate only about Iraq b/c the Admin won't let such a debate start - they'll start screaming from the start. You can't have a debate with someone who refuses to listen. It's even harder when the match the wax-filled ears with a venom-filled mouth.