Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is in the news about some remarks he made suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the current administration is morally confused, and that such confusion will mean the end of the Republic:

Rumsfeld said “any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere” in any long war.

While it’s tempting to believe that Rumsfeld is right, because he’s right on everything, I think I’ll go with Keith Olbermann’s rebuttal:

For they do not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence – indeed, the loyalty — of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land; Worse, still, they credit those same transient occupants – our employees — with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

On the Cato Institute blog they’re highlighting the cost of the war against Iraq in a way that has often occurred to me, but doesn’t seem to have been floated too many times:

What Would You Rather Have: The War in Iraq, or $1,075?

That’s how much you’ve spent on it so far.

Of course I’d be willing to spend all that and more to combat terrorism, but I’m less eager to spend it to fight the threat of all the WMD’s in Iraq.

(HT: Ezra Klein)

This doesn’t come naturally to me, but I’ve seen a few examples so here goes:

Put together these two facts:

1. Ann Coulter says that “Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan.”

2. “Opium cultivation in Afghanistan has hit record levels – up by more than 40 percent from 2005”

There you have it – Ann Coulter is objectively pro-opium.

(In case you don’t get it, the idea is to link to somewhat related snippets to discredit your opponent and then, and this bit is key, use the word objectively. Preferably in italics, like I just did. Apparently this should end all discussion, because what you have stated is objectively true.)