"Instead it chose to become the worst of all combinations, an anti-war party masquerading as the war party."

It seems to me that rigid, black and white thinking will lead to an fraudulent conclusion such as this. There's a process which is being ignored.

One could be "anti-war" (as if that's BAD), and then when one finds oneself in a war be willing to prosecute that war. Happens all the time. People have been drafted into the military who were not all that "pro-war", and then chosen to fight alongside their buddies.

The "brilliance" of this article escapes rational thinking. The country is ambivalent, and individuals are ambivalent. Someone may not want to swim, hate to swim, not want to get wet and cold, and yet choose to swim if thrown into a pool.

And you folks would say that person would be a "monstrous fraud". Both doesn't want to swim, and is swimming. Since he or she would not be a fraud in any sense of the word, one has to wonder at the motivations and thinking processes of those who would say so.

Arf (They say "brilliant", Bow. They're calling that empty, black and white analysis "brilliant". Scary.)