Anti-McClellan Republicans Care More About McClellan's "Betrayal" of Bush Than Bush's Betrayal of America

Well, that about sums it up. Bob Dole, one of my favorite Republicans, is the latest to blow a gasket (which, note, is not the same as losing your marbles, which, in turn, is not the same as losing your bearings, despite what desperate McCainiacs have tried to say).

O.k., now hear this: if a President is betraying the trust of the nation, then one has not only a right but an obligation to make this information public. Scott McClellan is not blameworthy for disclosing the information he has disclosed--he is, rather, blameworthy for not having disclosed it sooner.

Among the many sophistical arguments being promulgated by Republican lackeys on cable news, surely the most deplorable are those that include or presuppose the claim that personal loyalty to a corrupt president is more morally weighty than duty to the country. I sincerely hope that this is just more conservative bullshit, and that none of these people really believe this. This is a problem we repeatedly find ourselves facing when we consider the claims of the current crop of Republicans: we have to hope they're just bullshitting again, because if they're telling the truth, then they're, well, nuts.

What I'd like to ask the lackeys aforementioned is something like this:
Suppose I were a confidante of a president, and I knew that this president was about to take the country into an unjustified war--do you really believe that I should remain silent out of personal loyalty?

Jeez. As you know, I have fairly strong non-partisan inclinations...but Republicans don't make this position easy to maintain.