"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," said Samuel Johnson. The same seems increasingly true for Republicans, though it might be repetitive to append the observation to the aphorism of our wise lexicographer. (All this, by the way, I say as a registered pachyderm.)

You need go no further than the ongoing tiff about tossing bombs in Saddam's backyard to see the proof. So far the rule has been to hand pompoms and megaphones to fans of the move and gags and duct tape to dissenters. The result has been few dissenters.

One, Sen. Robert Byrd, said in a hearing late last month, "If we expect to kill every terrorist in the world, that's going to keep us going beyond Doomsday."

Shortly thereafter, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle chimed in to express his fears about the "expansion [of the war] without at least a clear direction."

Bush backers exploded.

Rep. Tom DeLay dubbed Daschle's remarks "disgusting."

Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott was likewise hot and flustered: "How dare Sen. Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field?" How, indeed?

If you just look at the politics alone, you can dismiss Daschle. His Oval Office fixation is well known, and he would say almost anything to prune the Bush back far enough to squeeze in.

But Byrd's words require a little more attention. Byrd's political aspirations go no further than slathering more pork on his constituents ? the porcine compulsion being the alpha and omega of his stately ambitions. So why chuck his concerns out the bomb-shelter air hole with so little consideration? His ulterior motives are strikingly bland and who-caresish.

The answer is that Republicans are not in the mood to answer critics. We're bomb-lobbing for Uncle Sam, mom and apple pie. Who could disagree? At the root, that's the rub. You can't disagree; at least, not without coming off like some sort of grade-A, America-hating jackass.

This is precisely what Sen. John Kerry was getting at when he blasted GOP loyalists for protecting the president's policies from scrutiny by draping them with "a false cloak of patriotism."

"False cloak" because there is nothing fundamentally patriotic about hurling munitions at Iraq, barking up North Korea's tree, or whichever monstrous evil is fashionable this week. Certainly there are arguments for doing so ? not the least of which is that Saddam has it coming like a third-grade bully.

But let's keep our bullies straight.

"It is certainly appropriate to raise questions about administration policy," explain National Review editors in the March 25 issue. "But if the Democrats stake out a position substantively different from that of the administration, they had better be able to defend it."

Agreed. But so should the Republicans. Right now we get very little argument or debate. Instead we get: "Of course you have to support this ? we're at war!" Or: "Let's stand behind our president; he's up against some evil characters."

After a while, the nationalistic moralizing and browbeating becomes tiresome. We may be on the side of the angels and have personal nods of approval from the Twelve Apostles, but let's hear some compelling reasons why, instead of simply insisting folks agree.

The whole point of a parliamentary or congressional system is to have fights and throw things. Parliamentarians and congressmen are certainly better employed doing that than actually passing legislation. For the GOP and its pro-war chorus girls in the media, however, it's not about wrestling over which polices are best or "issuplexing" the opponent. It's making sure everyone stays in step.

Britain isn't playing "house" the same way U.S. politicians are. Parliament is a rugby match. Deliberations about joining the U.S. in fire-slapping Saddam have been anything but a rerun of "Yes, Prime Minister."

According to the March 8 Scotsman, "The Prime Minister was told in a stormy meeting that there was deep unease in Westminster about Britain falling full square behind President George Bush." Unless Tony Blair is "able to give full justification for joining the U.S. in any attack on Iraq," his own cabinet warned that he faces open revolt, flying paperweights and the full Monty of murmuring and dissent.

If Clinton were still in power, the GOP would likely see it much the same way as the Brits do today. As Helen Thomas reminds, when Billy Jeff was sitting in Bush's seat, Lott carped on the president's intervention into Iraq. "He predicted that the 'cursory air strikes' would be ineffective and said the operation should be 'more clearly defined.'"

While Lott did retract his criticism, I think that's more because he has a spine with the consistency of warm jelly than the genuine conviction that he misspoke.

Patriotism is not about falling in line behind a president. It is about making sure the president does what's right by the country. And blindly accepting his decisions ? be they right or wrong ? is little more than asinine.

Said G.K. Chesterton in "The Defendant": "'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober'" ? a line that, when fitted for Bush, has special merit. As usual, Chesterton is correct. No real patriot would say that.

Only a fool would.

Related column:

The trouble with flag-wavers by R.C. Sproul Jr.