This, from conservative-against-the-war Andy McCarthy, is really weird:
I support what is called the “war on terror.” I will continue to support it no matter what the Iraqi constitution says. I will also continue to support the President's stewardship of it because he is determined to fight it, however much I may disagree with some of what is being done.
I come across this fairly often and it never fails to strike me as completely bizarre. It was an omnipresent claim during the election that, as Iraq's gotten worse, has been brought out of retirement to defend the president. But why?
1) Doesn't its mere utterance kind of give up the ghost? I mean, if you thought Bush was doing a good job, wouldn't you say "I continue to support the President's stewardship of the war because he's doing a kickass job banishing terrorists to graveyards, jail cells and torture chambers"? Seems to me that'd make for a much more convincing appeal and, given the hackery of those generally making this claim, that they can't bring themselves to go for the gold in Bush's defense really says a lot.
2) Who cares how much conviction, obsession, or attention Bush lavishes on the War on Terror? Do you know of any conservatives who are all about Lyndon Johnson because, say what you will, but the guy really wanted to defeat poverty? I can't think of another instance in modern politics where sane partisans earnestly insist that the real question isn't the results they've gotten but the effort they've put in. Andy supports Bush because, outcomes aside, the guy's really determined. Imagine if you fucked up on a major initiative than told your boss that, if he could stop thinking about the disastrous drop in your stock prices, he'd realize how committed you were and understand that that's what really matters.
And to think, the GOP is the Party of Business.
