Sometimes, I actually get a twinge of hope for liberals, when I read one writing sensible stuff like this:

We can't define ourselves as the "anti-Bush," blindly supporting those he opposes, and thereby letting the nitwit Napoleon in the White House pick our enemies for us. Nor can our revulsion for Bush's horrors throw us into the arms of swamp-things like George Galloway.

Duh. No kidding. Sadly, Greg's probably in a 3% minority -- most the rest of the left appears to be mindlessly, stupidly anti-Bush. I'd mock a conservative who felt Bush was without fault -- how could it be any better to act in every way as though he were utterly without virtue? Either proposition is absurd.

[Case in point: A friend's father was raging endlessly about how Bush had gotten Putin mad at him. Since Putin has been revealing himself as a rather nasty dictator, I tend to suspect anything which enrages such a man is something to support. Turns out Bush had said it was wrong of us to agree to turn over millions of East Europeans to Stalin's loving ministrations. That Putin took offense at a remark directed at Stalin was bad enough. That my friend's father sided with both dictators was utterly mind-blowing.]

I also liked this point:

[I]t is not good enough for the Left to oppose Mr. Bush's re-colonization of Iraq. We needed to have actively supported Iraqis fighting to remove their Mesopotamian Stalin. And now, we'd better come up with something a little less nutty than a recent suggestion by one otherwise thoughtful writer that we, "unconditionally support the insurgency" of berserker killers and fundamentalist madmen. If that's the Left's program for Iraq, count me out.

Too bad, as far as I can see, the vast majority of the left embraces guys like MM (Mike Moore) and GG (George Galloway), guys who say exactly that.