Anti-anti-war

Found this over at Instapundit.  Sounds about right to me.

Clearly, the important administration arguments are beginning to coalesce: 1) Criticism of the war is not by itself unpatriotic 2) Similarly, answering anti-war critics is not challenging their patriotism 3) But opportunistic and cynical anti-war critics who are trying to walk back their own votes and level spurious charges at the Administration (they lied to take is into war) are themselves lying 4) These lies are hurting the country and the troops. 5) The burden of proof, in a post 911 world, was on Saddam Hussein to prove he’d disarmed; we could not wait for the threat to become imminent before acting 6) The cause the troops are fighting for is just and right 7) Iraq is moving toward freedom; and things on the ground are improving daily, regardless of what the MSM and prominent Dems would have us believe.

I'm not a big fan of the "it's hurting the troops" argument.  Although, in the abstract, it is possible that verbal arguments can hurt the troops, the argument rings about as hollow to me as "it's for the children."  Whenever you hear "it's for the children" you can almost guarantee it's about something else (and you'd also better hold on to your wallet).  Given that "it's hurting the troops" is the rhetorical big gun, one had better be very discrete in how one throws around that accusation.