Matt Novak and Ben Stark have blogged previously on the lack of honesty in the Iraq debate. I agree with them. I have reflected on the issue - see below - and I still am not sure whether the escalation is the best of a bad bunch of options or a colossal mistake that will just mess things up worse. I just hope that General Petraeus knows what he's doing and that Bush doesn't try to micromanage too much - we've seen how well that works.
Dub-Style was remarkably civil about it in his State of the Union speech. Sadly, the same cannot be said for some of his supporters, who have gone back to the old strategy of questioning the patriotism of escalation's opponents. People who argue that opposing the surge helps the enemy are disgraceful. It's a statement more befitting Stalinist Russia than a democratic society like ours. Hewitt, and all those who have made similar arguments, owe the world an apology for polluting the world with their drivel.
Hewitt, in fairness, is basing his comments on an exchange between General Petraeus and Senator Lieberman, chronicled here in the Post, wherein Lieberman asked Petraeus if resolutions opposing the buildup would encourage the enemy and Petraeus replied. "That's correct." I don't blame Petraeus for this - he was goaded into making this statement, and while he should have known better than to take the bait, his response was at least forgiveable. Lieberman, however, should be ashamed of himself. Hewitt has an excuse for being an ignorant ass who uses Stalinist argument techniques - he presumably has a day job and can't invest the time necessary to engage in debate, understand the issue and formulate a full argument. Engaging in debate, understanding issues, and formulating reasoned policy stances is Lieberman's day job. As such, he has no excuse for resorting to what is, at best, rhetorical and argumentative laziness such as that resorted to by Hewitt and his ilk. He certainly has no excuse for advocating Communist-style dissent quashing if that's what he's doing.
I hope this is just Lieberman being lazy. I have respect for Lieberman when it comes to non-foreign-policy and non-war-on-terror issues. Had I lived in Connecticut, I would have had a hard time deciding between him and Lamont. But Lieberman, more than anyone, needs to stand up in front of the Senate and apologize for irresponsible remarks that can be construed to be anti-dissent. And if he honestly has such aversion to dissent, he deserves to be removed from the Senate post-haste.
I'm sorry to be so harsh. I'm not usually this mean to anyone but Tom Tancredo. I just don't believe that it's right to claim that people who disagree with you are unpatriotic or support our enemies. Ending this sort of irresponsible behavior will go a long way towards restoring civility to our issue debates.
Update: On a completely unrelated note, shoutout to PGA Tour pro and Vanderbilt grad Brandt Snedeker, who dropped a 61 on Torrey Pines to take the first-round lead in the Buick Invitational. That 61 includes a nine-under 27 on his first nine - that's birdie golf for nine holes, kids. Rock it, Vandergolfer.