This article, amazingly in SFGate.com, discussions the relevation of some important recent memos, each in which Democratic lawmakers exploit their powers and ties for hidden, purely partisan objectives, at the cost of their purported roles.

For example, one memo, published by Fox News (but of course) reveals that Democrat Jay Rockefeller and others intended to use (and already has used) their participation on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as a cover for a fishing expedition for yet-unknown documents which might embarass Bush:

Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard... We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority.

The goal here is obviously to deceive fellow committee members about their real intent. Let me remind you the purpose of sitting on this important committee is to help further the security of this nation; this memo details a strategy which cares not one whit about doing actual intelligence work.

Once Democrat committee members have cheesed off other committee members, and they can no longer abuse their access, the memo specifies they should call for an independent investigation. Of course. The memo seems to imply this will happen whether or not any serious evidence of wrongdoing is found:

We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context [where they have, you know, evidence of wrongdoing] than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.

In other words, this will work better if we find hints of something, but we'll do it either way.

And the "we don't know what we'll find" phrase (above) is telling: they're sure Bush II has cheated and lied, they just lack evidence for it, similar to the way the BBC just knew Blair had "sexed up" Iraqi intelligence, used fraud to call for an investigation in which we all learned said intelligence had actually been "sexed down".

The article also mentions other memos, including one where it was revealed that the Estrada nomination must be opposed despite having "no paper trail" -- e.g. no history of adjucating in any way to which Democrats might reasonably object.

This article is not about these things; I only mention them to set the stage for another observation.

I have a lot of "partisan" friends. I try to be, in words I've stolen from elsewhere, "conservative, not partisan", meaning I have my views, but I'm not sold out to one particular party above a consistent ideology. My "parisan" friends tend to lean left.

When I ask why they hate Bush, I hear answers which I can refute based on the data. (For example, they'll mention the uranium thing, and I'll point out that British Inteliigence still sticks by their story. Then they say they think the British lied to please Bush, but I point out that's merely a fond hope they have*, not evidence.) When this happens, the line of discussion drops dead: they will not respond further.

[* Shouldn't we hope, instead, that our commander-in-chief would be honest? Wouldn't that be better for us? I kept hoping Clinton would do the right thing!]

Later, I'll mention things like these memos. They'll inevitably say: "Both sides do that!" No matter what the misbehavior from Democrats, they'll say, of politicians in general "But they all do that!"

So let's review: When you mention what you feel is credible evidence of wrongdoing by the Bush administration, you conclude that it means the Bush administration is evil, but not Democrats. When I mention what you apparently also view as credible evidence of wrongdoing by Democrats, you dismiss its importance because you really know that every Republican is also secretly doing the same thing, and of course we can't condemn something if everyone is doing it.

This kind of hypocrisy drives me up the wall.

First, let's condemn wrong wherever we find it. This might mean starting with your party. If you keep excusing your party, then you're basicly also saying it's okay for the other party to do it as well. Mmmmkay?

Second, let's start applying the same standards of guilt to each party. If Bush is guilty until proven innocent, then so are Democrats. On the other hand, if we want serious evidence of wrongdoing before we condemn, say, Condit (rightfully so!), then we should also not be sure Bush has deliberately misled us about Iraqi WMD until we can, y'know, produce some evidence.

Third, If you think all politicians suck, then stop telling me how evil Republicans are while supporting Democrats. That's dishonest. Admit they're all evil and stop voting. Or vote randomly. Or for third parties.

On the other hand, I think only many politicians suck, and even then, only most the time. If we can't condemn even a single wrong because others have occurred -- or worse because we merely hypothesized they have occurred -- then we lose any moral basis for demanding improvement: All new evils are permissible because of past wrongdoing. And it's time to turn off the lights and go home.

Grow up, American partisan. Your moral equivalence is leaving you with the government you deserve.