You didn't answer my other point. The entire "connect the dots" campaign of a couple of years ago, pushed by the anti-Bush crowd, is totally incompatible with the campaign to destroy every method they have discovered for our intelligence apparatus to connect those dots. It doesn't seem to make sense, until you connect a few dots of your own.

I've been watching this for a few years now, and there's only one underlying premise where all the seemingly inconsistent positions the "anti-war" Left has taken seem to make sense, and that's the premise that it doesn't matter if the Middle East or anyplace else goes to hell as long as Bush burns with it. The one consistent line of thinking through all the political attacks is "if it hurts Bush and his administration, go for it."

IMO, this has never been about the war, or terror for much of the "anti-war" Left, and lately, for way too many leaders of the Democratic Party.

IMO, this has always been about Florida in 2000, and still is. If Iraq had never been touched, as I write this all of the exact same people would be attacking Bush on poppies, casualties, incompetence and quagmires in Afghanistan, without missing a single beat.

A good touchstone will be to see what they do if the Democrats don't get the House back in 2006. I predict stark, raving lunacy from some quarters. Anybody else want to get in on the bet?