One for all, and all for one

"United we stand". With political rancor at an all time high such patriotic phrases seem a little passe these days. Bush broached the subject while on the campaign trail this week. The AP covered the story:

President Bush, in full campaign mode, warned Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Tuesday to watch what they say or risk giving "comfort to our adversaries" and suffering at the ballot box in November.

In other words, there are still people in the trenches fighting this war, and your words may place them in greater danger.

He said he welcomed "honest critics" who question the way the war is being conducted and the "loyal opposition" that points out what is wrong with his administration's approach.

But he termed irresponsible the "partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people," as well as "defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Translation, "lose the Bush lied, people died garbage, it does no good. Feel free to fire away about the prosecution of the war". Apparently this hit a nerve with the AP writer, who followed immediately with some 'balance':

With that description, Bush lumped the many Democrats who have accused him of twisting pre-war intelligence with the few people, mostly outside the mainstream, who have raised the issues of oil and Israel.

Oh really? If one is accusing Bush of twisting intelligence there must be a reason. What difference does it make whether its Israel or oil or anything? An argument can certainly be made that he used poor judgment, but when you say 'twisted' it implies nefarious intent. That was Bush's point.

Of course we can't have a Bush story without hearing from Harry. Reid, that is:

Democrats said Bush has no business trying to define what sort of talk is acceptable.

You're correct Harry, Bush shouldn't have to use the bully pulpit to tell you something you should already know.

Harry went on to call for open dialogue, but from my vantage point the main democrat message is well known--Saddam was not a threat...Bush knew this but he lied...we're creating more terrorists by being there...we need to fold the tents and come home yesterday.

Just for a moment consider the result if the "Bush lied" rug was pulled out from under that argument. For example, what happens if the captured Baghdad documents conclusively show that Saddam had links to terrorism, or gasp, a WMD program? I'll leave the resulting 'open dialogue' to you.