My philosophy, at times expressed probably in a somewhat self-righteous fashion, is that life tends to be complex though some basic things are true. Thus, things like First Amendment rights and so forth are fundamental, and I am pretty absolutist in that respect, but I understand the complexity of the situation. So, I have pretty strong opinions on freedom from and of religion, but understand those who cross the line. I do not find such people per se reprobates while also finding some people on my side a bit over the top. This leads me to find things a bit less "slam dunk" than others, though at the end of the day, we might be on the same page more or less. This is probably fairly normal.
Still, especially since I favor places (blogs) that lean to the passionate, it seems at times a somewhat foreign sentiment. So it goes. The "gotcha" nature of all sides, especially the Republicans, reaffirms things. Thus, one might be afraid to say what TPM noted -- the Bush Administration, or if one wants, the professionals there, have did some good things to fight Al Qaeda. The core issue the NIE reaffirms is that Iraq helped a new strand, a sort of hydra (cut one head off ...) issue. This is not really too surprising -- the people aren't 100% incompetent after all, which apparently is a great thing to some people -- and in fact helps our side. After all, the fight generally was done via Kerryian crime fighting techniques. If the one thing they did right is something Dems probably would do better...
I also have reaffirmed the idea that we should know just what cost/benefit ratio is at stake. Thus, when dealing with checks/profiling/no fly lists at airports, I at various times referenced discussions that pointed out that it is not cost-free. This does not necessarily mean each particular thing is ill advised, but it very well mean that some tweaking should be made to help deal with problems, to deal with reasonable public concerns. To assume they are just rants of crazies, which "reasonable" sorts claim with snide epithets, is wrong. Likewise, the fact that bad things are not 100% bad in every way is not a clincher. See here respecting torture. Note also how the "good" things often are padded with fraudulent arguments.
[A special shame goes to "spin" jobs. This is something that in some dream world could be okay, but in actuality is obviously not. Since the electoral timing/rush/sickening acceptance is comparable, we can point to the October 2002 resolution that some people honestly claimed would help prevent a rush to war. It is of the "we don't torture" (the parrot is not dead, it is just pining in the fields) variety. B.S.
I saw a shade of this today when Sen. Warner claimed that an amendment setting a five year limit on presidential military commissions would mean that after that time terrorists could avoid coming to justice. Sure, after five years, the executive's power would not simply come up for renewal/tweaking. Such shameful lying is obviously not surprising, but isn't much less disgusting for its normality.]
One more thing on the 100% deal. Perspective is a good thing. Thus, though sentiments like this are understandable [some shred of understanding is very important, some true respect, which is often lacking], they are defeatist. Also, it is unfair since House Democrats did speak out and generally speaking vote (around 80% or so) the right way. In fact, two who did not (including Sherrod Brown, which is a shame), are running for the Senate! And, the Senate seems to be the true target of that link. I am on the front line of those who demand Democrats to show spine and principles. I wanted censure. I wanted a Torture Czar filibuster. I was upset when a few Dems voted for Ashcroft, using their little firepower to accomplish a pointless defeat of Linda Chavez (as if her replacement was any real improvement). My senators should spend a bit more time on torture than targeting Rummy. And so forth.
There is a Nader flavor here ... a "pox on both your houses" sentiment that does not hold up. It is useful, surely, to see the limitations of the current Democratic Party ... the knee-jerk sentiment when I post some offensive thing on the Slate Fray is to target "conservatives" and so forth, when the problem often is broader. All the same, we live in the real world. Everything is not black/white. Thus, people point out that some good things came out of the War in Iraq. This is supposed to be conclusive. This is akin to be happy about the destruction in New Orleans since it might provide a sort of an urban renewal function. [Surely, no one said that ... well ....] The fact killing someone (not talking execution here) might get rid of a bad person is not per se a justification for homicide.
Same here: on balance, time after time, current events underline how those currently in power acted against our interests. The fact every act they do doesn't do this (Bush supporter!!!!) does not change this. This goes back to the last presidential election -- the fact Kerry seemed like somewhat weak gruel to some people did not justify voting for the other guy. We are not dealing with a vacuum here or the proverbial (h/t Atrios "and a pony" regime where the best possible world is available. We are living in the real world.
Messy, I know, but there is a certain charm to that all the same. Oh shut up, Felix.