Yep. Mitchell’s excellent post includes that #4 which implies that foreign policy should stop at the water’s edge. The water’s edge doesn’t mean *just* the ocean seas, but at any point where to proceed is to drown. IOW, it’s a matter of degree, Markus.

Oh, I know the hypothetical–it’s “what to do with an out-of-control president?” That hypothetical is why “Bush Lies” is so all important for the left.

But, could all that be just political smearing?

Well, congress is answering that for you. After Dem leaders have laid out all the ‘illegitimate war, illegitimate president’ rhetoric for the enemy to revel in, they proceed to fund that war.

Do you get the implication, Markus? It’s that the “over the water’s edge” anti-war left is the only element in the mix that IS illegitimate. Why, because an enemy does exist, and the anti-war left is helping that enemy.

The rhetoric from your own leaders has just been a tool all along (witness Sheehan). There’s your answer for you. Push comes to shove, the enemy must be stopped, if this nation is to proceed in its chosen way. All else, that is, methods and modes, is commentary.

If you agree with any of that, then you’d have to agree that what your end of the political spectrum ought to be doing is helping to win the war, in order to get it over with –instead of stringing it bloodily out forever, apparently in hopes of nothing loftier than greater domestic political success.