I keep seeing letters to the editor in the Journal-Sentinel reflecting an idea you’ll also see in national magazines and conservative blogs: Liberals oppose the war in Iraq because they hate George W. Bush and want to see him fail, no matter the cost.

This is, of course, insane.

Do these W supporters really swallow their own pundits’ line about “Bush Derangement Syndrome”? Do they truly believe that a sizable bloc of their fellow citizens hates the President so much that they want the country to “lose” a war, become more vulnerable to terrorism, and plunge Iraq into (more) bloodshed, just to say nyah-nyah-nyah in Bush’s face?

Generally, when I debate people, I try to understand their point of view. I understand how someone can — even now — support the war in Iraq. Even assuming the person is not just a duped puppet of Fox News, even if he or she knows the truth about Saddam and 9/11, about the WMDs, about Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia — even then, I can understand the reasons that lead them to support the war.

Apparently that’s just liberal wussiness. People with balls (either male or female) don’t try to understand their opponents; they just shrilly accuse them of terrible motives, call them crazy, lather, rinse, repeat.

If this was confined to the Ann Coulters and Michelle Malkins of the right, it would be easier to ignore. But it is all over the right-wing echo chamber. Yet how can ordinary people — the kind who write to the paper — believe these things about those they work with and talk to every day?

Once, years ago, a conservative informed me, with a completely straight face, that all liberals were either liars or dupes. At the time, I thought he was an outlier. I know now I was wrong.