First, if you haven’t read the full text of Barack Obama’s October 2, 2002 speech in opposition to the Iraq war — given nearly six months before the invasion began, while most of the country’s leaders in both parties were still in full smoke-’em-out mode — go take three minutes and read it.  Seriously.  Go.  You’ll see it wasn’t based on a knee-jerk opposition to war on principle, but because of the specific facts of the situation, plainly visible in advance.

You may be blown away by how clearly, accurately, and wisely an American politician can actually speak, at least when he’s not yet particularly well-known.  (Lately, not quite so much.  Obama not even showing up to vote against the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment was disappointing.)

In retrospect, Obama (in 2002, at least) displayed both foresight and political courage.  How do you discredit that?

Simple — by bizarrely equating factual correctness with weakness, as Fred Barnes did on Fox News over the weekend.  (Hat tip Media Matters, Atrios, and TPM.)

If knowing the facts = weakness, then the contrapositive case — not being weak = not knowing the facts — is the logical equivalent.  Compare and contrast:

Of course, this may have just been a slip of the tongue.  I mean, the ruling party in 1984 constantly preached against sex, saw perpetual war as an inherently stabilizing force, engaged in torture in a series of secret prisons, and were completely obsessed with domestic surveillance.  Um.  Hmm.

Maybe I should get this out of the way while I can:  Do it to Julia!  Do it to Julia!

OK, there.  We’re cool.