Paul Beston at AmSpec’s blog quotes James Bowman on accusing opponents of being “delusional”:

Generally speaking, the rhetorical resort to the popularized language of psychotherapy should be treated as prima facie evidence of a lack of intellectual seriousness, and that applies in spades to any allegation of psychosis against one’s political enemies.

I think that’s basically right.  So it was funny to see the start of Hewitt’s latest post where he babbles on about his pledge effort and the non-binding resolution against the “surge”: 

The Senate is delusional if it thinks the American people want it to run the war.

Now I don’t suppose we really needed more evidence to question Hewitt’s “intellectual seriousness,” but the time stamps of the two posts made the connection irresistible.

Update: Oh, yes, I almost forgot: in the strange world of Hewitt, even John McCain, who might be called the godfather of the “surge” because of his adamant support for increased numbers of soldiers in Iraq, is no longer pure enough.  He has suggested a resolution that involves benchmarks to measure what success (if any) the “surge” is having.  This is called Congressional oversight.  It makes Hewitt very unhappy.  It supposedly “undercuts” the soldiers now going to Iraq because it, er, wants some standard by which to measure their success.  Clearly, that’s a heinous betrayal by that no-good appeaser (or is it neoappeaser?) McCain.  Here is Hewitt’s take on oversight by the Senate:

To demand more “oversight” two days after confirming the general committed to the new strategy is quite simply political cowardice of the highest order.  They had their “oversight,” and they said yes.  How can any of them send the man off to Iraq and then undercut him before the plane takes off. [sic]  He was clear and forceful.  And they voted yes.

How could we all be so stupid?  Obviously, oversight always stops the minute the vote is finished and…what’s that, you say?  The Senate has a responsibility to engage in oversight on an ongoing basis?  Why would they need to do something like that?  It’s not as if they’re equipped to engage in this so-called ”oversight” with a whole apparatus of committees and…oh, wait.  No, don’t try to confuse me with any of these details–political cowards, every last one of them! 

Actually, that last part is true, but not because they are talking about these resolutions, as Hewitt holds.  Truly serious people on both sides would insist on having up-or-down votes on the meat of the policy that would either fully endorse the White House’s plan or scuttle it.  Maybe someone like a Chuck Hagel would have the courage of his stated convictions and actively work to stop the “surge” all together.  More likely, when the vote really counts, he might just sheepishly line up with his party again, as he did with the authorisation resolution over four years ago.  We are unfortunately left with a parade of clowns who would like nothing so much as to be able to avoid the entire subject.  Because they cannot, they settle for meaningless, non-binding resolutions out of fear of being attacked as “defeatist” and worse if they try to exercise their constitutional powers.  That being said, the clowns are within their rights and have managed to come off looking a good deal more credible than Hewitt and his associates.