It's going to be a long four years. The Democrats seem to have decided to oppose Bush by lying. A lot.

For example:

During the 1990s there were several proposals for reforming Social Security made by Democrats. These involved investments in the private sector and some of them were similar to Bush's proposal. All of that is forgotten in the rush to accuse Bush of trying to dismantle Social Security.

Prior to 2003, everyone said that Saddam Hussein has WMDs. Even Saddam himself hinted that he had them. Now the line is that Bush made it all up. Regime change was the stated policy of the US government when Bush took office. The only reason that Condolezza Rice's confirmation was held up was so that prominent Democrats could rail against Bush and Iraq.

Someone in the Justice Department wrote a memo to Alberto Gonzales. Now, somehow, the Whitehouse council is being blamed for actions by the military. Again, it ws nothing more than an excuse to rail at the President.

None of this will help the Democrats capture the White House, Congress, or state governments. It only serves to make them feel better about themselves.

This brings me to a column by Michael Totten. Back during the Gulf War, Totten was against it because of the outside possibility that he might be drafted.

Looking back, I'm embarrassed, even if Baker's rationale was offensive and stupid. My own "analysis" was thin adolescent gruel. A genocidal totalitarian regime would have been allowed to swallow the harmless country next door if Bush 41 had listened to me. It wasn't my finest or most sophisticated moment. Baker's absurd justification for his position did not excuse mine.

Some of my more moderate friends, both pro- and anti-war, asked me why I felt so compelled to protest every day. Well, I told them, because I was alienated and scared. Alienated because my view was so much in the minority. Scared because I would have been among the first, not the last, to be drafted if it came to that. Joining the protest movement was a way to surround myself with people who were on my side, who shared my detestation of war, and who could viscerally relate to my fears. I knew very well we were all tilting at windmills. I protested because it made me feel better.

That's what's going on in Congress right now.

Eric Alterman is getting downright embarrassing. First he was on TV with Jeff Jarvis talking about the Iraq election. Jarvis mentioned that there are some pro-American blogs by Iraqis. Alterman replied that these must be CIA plants. They've been feuding since then. Jarvis's point is that there are people in Iraq who would kill bloggers if they thought that they were CIA plants.

Alterman admits that he has not read any Iraqi blogs and knows nothing about them but insists that the CIA is likely involved.

More recently, Alterman has this to say:

Then last week the most embarrassing new member of United States Senate, Tom Coburn said:

I immediately thought about silicone breast implants and the legal wrangling and the class-action suits off that.

And I thought I would just share with you what science says today about silicone breast implants. If you have them, you're healthier than if you don't. That is what the ultimate science shows.
...
In fact, there's no science that shows that silicone breast implants are detrimental and, in fact, they make you healthier.

Alarmingly, Coburn is a licensed physician.
Again, Alterman writes without any idea of what he is talking about. A licensed physician quotes the science on breast implants. This should be fairly common knowledge. The FDA almost re-approved silicone breast implants recently after studies showed that there are no health risks associated with implants (the backed off unexpectedly from political pressure). In his haste to show how Republicans attack science simply shows that Alterman prefers anecdotal evidence to scientific studies.