Insanity. And while it's generally misleading to judge a blog's author or community in general by the comments that can be found on it, Goldstein and half a dozen other commenters chimed in with unqualified praise for this commenter, so in this case I feel justified.

There's quite a bit in that post that's incorrect, disagreeable, or similar, but there's one thing in there that's flat-out irrational and yet frighteningly common.

The only way we will lose is we keep on listening to idiots such as Murthra, Pelosi, Moore and Dipshit in the time of whatever.

I would recommend to all that they call up or write their congressmen and tell them to stay the course.

Right. El Salvador-style death squads are now a part of the Iraqi police force. The army thinks it's necessary to use propaganda in a country we aren't at war with and they got caught. The duly-elected Iraqi government is asking us to get out and saying that insurgents have a "legitimate right" to attack Americans.

But if we lose in Iraq, whatever "losing" means, it is totally and completely the fault of The Left(TM).

New flash, jackass: the Republicans are in power. If things were going well now, and if they got worse after a Democratic president started implementing his policies, then maybe it wouldn't be totally insane to blame the Democrats for the chaos in Iraq. Since neither of those "if"s is true yet, wake up. Like it or not, Bush is in charge. If he chooses to bend under political pressure and institute a plan that turns out to be disastrous, then - well first of all, I really don't care if it's disastrous unless it's even more disastrous than his current plan, and that's a pretty high bar for disaster. But even if he does follow the Murtha's-in-all-but-name plan and Iran gets nuclear weapons as a direct and inevitable result, it's still his fault. His choice, his decision, his burden. Gun makers aren't liable for gun deaths, neo-Nazis are not (usually) liable for hate crimes they didn't commit, and people criticizing a politician aren't responsible for what the politician does about it*.

To be clear, I can't really blame Bush or other elected Republicans for this attitude. As far as I know they aren't promoting this particular bit of stupidity themselves, and even if they were, politicians do what they have to do to get elected. Dishonesty and innuendo are still unethical, but this is meaningless to complain about because almost any professional politician would do the same thing in the Republican's shoes. But I can blame the morons who fall for it. There's a point when ideology becomes blind faith and willful ignorance, and when you're blaming your political rivals for "potential future"** problems in a situation that they have never had control over, that point is just a speck in the distance behind you.

*Yes, even if he what he's doing is just following their advice. The worst you can call someone who gives bad advice either in earnest or not expecting it to be followed is "stupid". That and much worse is perfectly fair against the men who caused, well, almost everything I linked to above half of what I linked to above and more besides.

**"There are none so blind as those who will not see..."