Helping The Bad Guy

Yesterday I linked to an article by Michael Barone, which examines America's "covert enemies"--i.e. those Americans who choose to focus on what's wrong with their country and its actions in history, rather than acknowledge any of the good in the nation most of the world's refugees would vote "the one to which I'd most like to emigrate." These same people don't really want to see the Islamofascist enemy win the war we are in, because they wouldn't want to live in the world he would create, but they would still like to see us lose, because really we deserve it. On some level we are the bad guys, and the conflict really is all our fault anyway, or thus the reasoning goes.

Power Line has an example of something similar, but on an international scale. It seems that some people, supposedly on the side of truth, justice, and liberty, won't cross a line to confront, or even discuss, obvious corruption with programs like the U.N.'s Oil for Food fiasco, or the threat posed by the current regime in Iran, because it would mean giving aid and comfort to President Bush. The idea goes like this: "I didn't want to admit that there was massive corruption between Saddam Hussein and U.N. officials in the Oil for Food program, because that would have supported Bush's case for war." What brilliant reasoning. Did it ever occur to them that if they had reported it, the corruption might have been stopped and then the sanctions might actually have been effective, weakening the regime and its financial ability to create WMD, thus lessening the need for war?!! Can you imagine not reporting a child molester because doing so would help the police officer who gave you a speeding ticket? It's about the same mentality--helping the bad guy, so the good guy won't win. Why don't they just join the Taliban and get it over with?

Hat tip: Instapundit