Putz bemoans "over-the-top critics."

This is rich.

Bush's critics are one of his greatest assets, as C.J. Burch said a while back. After I referred to that the other day, Burch emailed: "If the left doesn't shut up the Republicans will be able to continue acting like this and still get themselves elected...God help us all." And that goes for Bush's over-the-top critics on the non-left, too.

Putz is referring to Andrew Sullivan, who Putz has now deemed "over-the-top" because he's trying to figure out how the Bushies could've so thoroughly screwed up Iraq.

Problem is, Putz just approvingly linked a few days ago to this post by Daily Pundit (via Greenwald).

I'm hoping we can get through the next two years without any major disasters, and then I'm looking to elect a real war leader to the White House - somebody with a warrior's temperament and a leader's skills. George Bush has neither. He is a dangerous failure, and America will be well rid of him.

So the rule is, if you're taking a position with which Putz agrees (in this case, that Bush didn't let Israel kill enough Lebanese), no rhetoric cricizing the President is beyond the pale. But if you're taking a position with which Putz disagrees, for instance, that the Iraq war is a total calamity, then you're "over-the-top."

Got that?

But this is too much:

I know that conspiracy theory is all the rage now, but I don't see how this leads to a healthy politics.

Yeah, we wouldn't sure want to engage in consipracy theories, would we? And I don't see how calling Democrats traitors and likening the media with the Axis Powers leads to a healthy politics, either.