PSoTD

I really wonder if Republicans will appreciate the irony in Melvin Laird's editorial wrap-up in today's Washington Post:

We do not advocate a silencing of debate on the war in Iraq. But care must be taken by those experienced officers who had their chance to speak up while on active duty. In speaking out now, they may think they are doing a service by adding to the reasoned debate. But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.

It's Bush-backing conservatives that are not appreciating this reasoned debate, suggesting it is a sign of weakness and lack of resolve. Is that who Laird means as "the enemy"?