It's both the best and worst things about the blogosphere, just when you think you have unique take or  profound revelation on something someone validates your theory but beats you to the punch.

My recent revelation was in noticing a consistent inconsistency in Democrat logic on both the war and energy policies that exposes their serious problem with linear thinking.  In Iraq they would have us believe that the sooner we pull out militarily the faster the political and economic solutions will occur  - -  when in fact only a military component can facilitate those solutions.

Likewise in energy where they want us to believe that the energy crisis can be solved without increasing our domestic oil supply - - apparently clueless to the reality that a wholesale immediate switch to all alternative energy would leave us in the dark.

It's a matter of sequencing  the proper amalgam of solutions.  Not even the most rabid hawk implied that Iraq solution was strictly military, just as the most anti-environmentalist claims domestic drilling is the sole solution to the energy mess. Most problems consist of a combination of factors so only the most naive can believe there is a single solution. 

The rhetorical trick is to cast doubt on the other side by accusing them of oversimplification.  That is the flip side of the same coin they use in deliberately over complicating an issue to the point where we clueless Heartlanders just throw up our hands in surrender because only something as big and powerful and all-knowing as government can fix it.  I've said it before but it bears repeating and will be a Heartland Axiom: most issues aren't too complicated to fix, they are fixed to look too complicated.      

Rand Simberg explores he dark intricacies of this line of thinking in Scarecrows and Bogeymen, excerpted and linked below.   

The inestimable Dr. Krauthammer says...

The green fuels the Democrats insist we should be investing in are as yet uneconomical, speculative technologies, still far more expensive than extracted oil and natural gas. We could be decades away. And our economy is teetering. Why would you not drill to provide a steady supply of proven fuels for the next few decades as we make the huge technological and economic transition to renewable energy?

Just like it took security first to allow progress in Iraq it will take more oil first to help us out of this energy crisis.

...drilling requires no government program, no newly created bureaucracy, no pie-in-the-sky technologies that no one has yet invented. It requires only one thing, only one act. Lift the moratorium. Private industry will do the rest. And far from draining the treasury, it will replenish it with direct taxes, and with the indirect taxes from the thousands of non-subsidized new jobs created. TRTWT It's Simple: Drill and Conserve

Brilliant, unfortunately in this Democrat controlled Congress the relationship of brilliance to policy is inverse.

Rand Simberg at Pajamas Media weighs in by examining two overused Democrat sound bites: "there is no military solution" and "We can't drill our way out of this crisis".  On point 1; Uh, yes there is, and it happened, and point 2; drilling is not the only way, but it is irrefutably among the most crucial, and at least as immediate as any alternative sources given the capacity requirements.   

I liked this part
...the Democrats continue to pretend that it is those who wanted to win in Iraq, and those who want to bring new supplies to market, are advocating a single solution, it is in fact they who are denying the true total solution, by preemptively excluding critical elements in both cases. Those who favored the successful Petraeus strategy have never dismissed the need for diplomacy and other counterinsurgency tactics. Those who advocate environmentally sensitive production in promising new fields don’t deny the need for other, better energy technologies. In both cases, we have to continue to move forward on every front, TRWT Democrats Throwing Up Scarecrows and Bogeymen

And no sooner does Simberg observe that Dems accuse Republicans of single solution stupidity none other than NYT Columnist Paul Krugman provides a perfect exhibit A:

is that know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. 

Oh really?

But hold on a minute, wasn't it Obama who came up with the doozy of all simple solutions with his roundly debunked theory that properly inflated tires will save as much oil as can be pumped from the outer continental shelf? (I have about as firm a grasp on the amount of oil under our collective continental shelves as my 5 year-old daughter but that claim sounds pretty goofy to me)
 
To my eye all it takes is a Democrat with a microphone to make the Republicans look like the party of Einsteins.

Gotta hand it to Krugman, not only does he get it wrong, he gets it EXACTLY wrong. Assuming you are not gluttons for punishment I didn't link Krugman's rant.  The charming and clever title should tell you all you need to know;  Republicans Now The Party of Stupid. Just think of the trees, ink, and hot air saved if only liberals could argue without insult.