I was knocking around the 'sphere this morning, looking for something to write about or link to. Back and forth, link to link, liberal to conservative to advice on gardening. I ran across a conservative site that had a remarkable 8 button links to various movements. I followed a couple of them to their source, where I was told that if I'm a friend to Israel, I need this button on my site. Do I support Iranian Democracy? Well, there are two buttons for that. First Iraq, then France? Got one for that, too.

As it happens, I consider myself a "friend of Israel" and sure, I support democracy in Iran. Who doesn't? Except Bush-hating liberals and leftists, of course, who saw that Bush supports it to and suddenly it's part of an insidious plot by the war machine. Or something like that.

So am I less a "friend of Israel" if I don't have a button and link on my site to an Israeli pro-active defense site? I'm not inclined to sign a petition telling Israel what they ought to be doing nor am I inclined to button up my site with fifteen pieces of flair for a movement just about everyone in their right mind supports.

But, of course, it's the 'in' thing. Right now we're talking about the death of Hussein's kids, which I haven't really commented on. Good news, of course. But John Hawkins has links to the Democratic Underground that suggests that not everyone thinks so. Joe Katzman wants links to liberal sites that can "bring themselves" to celebrate the good news. He got some, but not many, which suggests to thousands of nodding conservative readers that liberals can't bear to congratulate our military when they succeed. Some, of course, can't, and the rest get tainted by association lest they wear a flag button on their lapel and comment on it, saying what everyone else is saying. Another piece of flair.

It reminds me of the fall of Trent Lott, where all conservatives everywhere were expected to denounce Lott for his stupid comments, lest they be racists. As it happens, I had some harsh words early on. Oh, but wait, I didn't also denounce every other racist thing said, which proves that I am either a racist or as blind to it as liberals without their congratulations of the military are anti-American.

All of this leading... to what, exactly? Points for our team or points for theirs, I suppose. It's reminding me less and less of a political debate sometimes as it is alumni college football fans seperated by orange and maroon, taunting each other on how their alma mater is gonna whup the other's.

Did Bush lie about Hussein's attempts to gain uranium from Niger? Depends on if you conflate exaggeration with a lie and you think Bush exaggerated. Or maybe it's not that, if you're on the center-left, but rather that Bush's credibility is in doubt and "some people" can't believe him anymore. Except that the "some people" never really believed him in the first place and coincidentally are the same some people that are listening to the some people that are concerned about the some people losing faith in the president they never really had it with to begin with.

After a while, the situation gets so removed from the factually-accurate-but-possibly-deceptive statement that the statement, Bush's intent, and what he knew and when he knew it no longer matter.

Oh wait, did I say "possibly-not-deceptive"? I probably shouldn't have, cause I can see the blog posts on it now: "Even Republican agrees that Bush was possibly deceptive."

But then, I'll get instant credibility with Democrats, I suppose. President Clinton has been cited by the same people who tried to drive him out of office as an authoritative source on national security. Present and former military personnel are in turn cited by liberals when they have something negative to say about goings on. Gotcha. Gotcha! Gotcha!!

At the end of the day, though, liberals still detest Bush, conservatives still support him, his poll numbers fall a bit, and the Democratic nominees continue to look less and less electable.

What I found striking as I went down my blogroll and my blogroll's blogrolls was the same sources cited, over and over again, to make the same point that the authors have been making, over and over and over again. In the absense of news, I guess, we're simply left to find someone new who agrees with us, fisk someone who doesn't, and reiterate our positions in an endless cycle.

My calender says July, but it feels like August. The month where there isn't much happening, so everything that does is suddenly super important.

In the run-up to the war, the yelled, argued, and debated. When the troops hit the ground, the debate simply shifted to proving that they were right. With each taking of Basra, each side was vindicated. Then Baghdad fell, but oh wait, what happened to the furniture? Turns out most of the furniture was fine, but now we're debating on the justification to a war we've already fought in which everyone long made up their minds (sixteen words or no sixteen words) in which we won and are now dealing with the consequences of.

I'm going to check my calender again. It must be August.