How Many Here Would Vote For The Following candidates,

[_EAllusion]

Christopher Hitchens is an ex-Trotskyite who holds generally liberal views. He is very hawkish on humanitarian issues. That's why he supported the war in Iraq and supports a lot of other wars. The only way you can think of him as a "Republican shill" is if you are only paying attention to a narrow set of topics where he is famous for agreeing with the same position the Republican party took, though not necessarily the same justification.

[_moksha]

b***s***. Show me a clear link between Marxism and DNC policy.

Social Security, universal health care, high, progressive tax rates, its core belief in redistribution of wealth, the public school system, outcome based education

This to me seems like caring about the wellbeing of their fellow human beings. The exact opposite of dog-eat-dog unfettered capitalist policies most likely emanating from Satan.

[_Angus McAwesome]

You don't know what you are talking about. And even if you did, it still wouldn't matter what you think Hitchens is.

Simply because you say so? Oh, right... You're one of those drooling idiots that constantly and consistantly fails to provide anything to back his claims. Maybe if you ask him nice Drippy McDouche will let you borrow his spare dunce cap.

Which is why you can't demonstrate what threat it was that Saddam posed to the US.

Actually I can and did. I'd like for you to take a moment and go back and read my post. Then respond to something specific, because for now, it looks like I gave you an assfull of evidence that he was a threat, and you are incoherently blathering and adding nothing of substance.

You did no such thing, liar. All you did was trot out the same tired ass party line without showing a single concrete piece of evidence that Saddam was even remotely an actual threat to either the Continental United States or our interests abroad.

Instead of showing facts about what capabilities Saddam may have had to disrupt our interests in the regiuon or actually attack us, you give me more of the standard issue "Stay The Course" bull.

You clearly did not read any of the information I posted for you. Or maybe TRL was on and you got distracted. I never even brought up reasons to stay the course.

Ok, then show me where in any of that tripe you regurgitated where it showed concrete evidence of systems in the possession of Iraq that could harm the continental US or present a signifigant threat to our interests overseas.

Otherwise I'll have to ask that you kindly shut the hell up, because no one like a broken record or a liar, GoodK.

So once again, what threat was Saddam to us?

Once again, I'd like for you to take a moment and go back and read my post. Then respond to something specific, because for now, it looks like I gave you an assfull of evidence that he was a threat, and you are incoherently blathering and adding nothing of substance.

And all your post did was keep parroting assholes like Hitchens, whose idea of threat assessment is Chicken Little "The Sky Is Falling!" horse crap.

So I'll ask you again...

WHAT THREAT DID SADDAM POSE TO THE UNITED STATES AND OUR INTERESTS ABROAD, YOU QUESTION DODGING DICKHEAD? Quit dodging, quit stalling, quit being a dishonest pinhead and answer the god damned question already.

I posted plenty of information to get you started on the answers to that question.

Funny thing is, none of the crap you mentioned or linked to makes mention of any systems or capabilities that could actually threaten us.

Just so you know, I think George W Bush is a horrible president and I dislike almost every single thing that he has done for the last 8 years. But I'm not naïve or ignorant enough to seriously believe Sadaam was not a threat.

Which is why you've been defending Dubya's "decision making" concerning invading Iraq, amirite?

Saddam had no ability to attack us directly. Saddam had no ability to attack any of our allies in the Middle East to any significant degree and what little ability he had was easily countered by assets we already had in the region.

So where was the threat?

He is also clearly not educable on these and other issues. Showing what the threat Saddam posed was is quite easy, and if Angus had ever bothered to read the David Kay, Rob/Silberman, and most importantly, the final Iraq Survey Group report (the Duelfer Report), the reams of remedial education required to bring him up to speed on the rudiments of even the most recent American history would not be required (nor is anyone here going to bother doing so, given Angus' general attitude of blind frothing toward anyone who contradicts his vacuous MoveOn.org platitudes and tin foil hat naval gazing regarding these subjects).

Hey, Drippy McDouche, the minute you can actually demonstrate you have anything beyond an 8th grade education you may talk smack about other people. Till then, shut your inbred ass up.

Saddam was attacked and deposed for several important reasons, not the least of which was to prevent his dismantled and dispersed (including dispersion outside Iraq) WMD programs from being reconstituted in the future (after the Oil for Food program had worked its magic and the heat was off). In other words, it was to prevent Saddam's WMD from ever becoming an imminent threat, or clear and present danger.

You mean the WMD programs that we never found after the Invasion? Yeah, all that stuff just magically disappeared into thin air the second US troops crossed into Iraq I guess...

Idiot.

I hope we never see a president - republican, democrat, or otherwise - that is willing to wait for a country like Iraq to demonstrate that they posess a nuclear weapons program capable of destroying the US before we decide to intervene. I can't fathom why people think that is a good idea.

Ok, I'm calling BS on this. Show some evidence that Saddam even had the ability to seriously persue a nuclear weapons program. Considering the one reactor that Iraq had was inoperable thanks to the Israelis, I find that extremely difficult to believe.

The really frightening, indeed, terrifying thing about this is that this individual represents the Democratic Party's voter base. Angus, following Mr. Franklin, deserves neither liberty or security.

I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, Dumbass. But thanks for confirming that you're an idiot that thinks that anyone that doesn't believe in your extremely narrow and poorly educated view of conservatism must be a "liberal" or a "socialist' or a "democrat".

Seriously, do they put distilled stupidity in the water in South Carolina?

[_Bond...James Bond]

Am I the only one that voted for McGovern? lol

You're the only guy old enough to know who McGovern is :P

[_EAllusion]

Angus -

After it became clear that there was no WMD in Iraq, a popular theory developed among some hardcore conservatives that there really was WMD, but it was shipped away - mainly to Syria - shortly before the invasion. It wasn't uncommon to see this argued in 2004, even with some sketchy evidence. It's not very common now, but I think you can see an artifact of that argument in what Droopy is saying. You might not realize that's what he's alluding to.

[_Pokatator]

Am I the only one that voted for McGovern? lol

You're the only guy old enough to know who McGovern is :P

I know who he is and I also voted for him. I am also called gramps by my grandkids. Life is so full of similarities.

[_Angus McAwesome]

After it became clear that there was no WMD in Iraq, a popular theory developed among some hardcore conservatives that there really was WMD, but it was shipped away - mainly to Syria - shortly before the invasion. It wasn't uncommon to see this argued in 2004, even with some sketchy evidence. It's not very common now, but I think you can see an artifact of that argument in what Droopy is saying. You might not realize that's what he's alluding to.

I've heard that argument before, EA. Whenever someone trots it on out I ask them to provide some solid evidence for it and then laugh at them when they can't bring anything more then accusations and ad hominems.

[_GoodK]

You don't know what you are talking about. And even if you did, it still wouldn't matter what you think Hitchens is.

Simply because you say so? Oh, right... You're one of those drooling idiots that constantly and consistantly fails to provide anything to back his claims. Maybe if you ask him nice Drippy McDouche will let you borrow his spare dunce cap.

You really are an idiot, aren't you? Have you done anything to demonstrate you even know what you are talking about? No. Have you been annoying and dismissive even when I went out of my way to share some information with you -- so you wouldn't continue to look like an idiot loosing an argument to Droopy? Yes.

WHAT THREAT DID SADDAM POSE TO THE UNITED STATES AND OUR INTERESTS ABROAD, YOU QUESTION DODGING DICKHEAD? Quit dodging, quit stalling, quit being a dishonest pinhead and answer the god damned question already.

I answered your stupid question in my first post. Just because you ignore the answers doesn't mean they aren't there and everyone else can't read them. Stupid ass. (Does it help when I talk to you this way? This seems to be your preferred level of discourse.)

Just so you know, I think George W Bush is a horrible president and I dislike almost every single thing that he has done for the last 8 years. But I'm not naïve or ignorant enough to seriously believe Sadaam was not a threat.

Which is why you've been defending Dubya's "decision making" concerning invading Iraq, amirite?

I am defending it because I hate bad ideas and bad arguments. It is a bad argument to say that Hussein was an innocent victim and was no threat to us or "our interests abroad." It is beyond dumb. The pretty girls from 2 AM Pharmacy get away with making that sort of argument - I don't expect them to know anything about current events or foreign affairs.

Even worse, I am defending Droopy. I believe he is right about this and you are wrong. I don't particularly like "defending" either of them, but the situation is what it is.

[_Angus McAwesome]

You really are an idiot, aren't you? Have you done anything to demonstrate you even know what you are talking about? No. Have you been annoying and dismissive even when I went out of my way to share some information with you -- so you wouldn't continue to look like an idiot loosing an argument to Droopy? Yes.

Pawning off some hack's rationaliztion for Bush's reasoning for invading another country ISN'T providing evidence of a credible threat, numbnuts. Saddam lacked the means to pose a credible threat to the US and our interests abroad. So either demonstrate that Saddam really did have WMDs (he didn't or at least not in any meaningful amount or means to deliver them), Saddam had delivery systems that posed a threat to us our or regional allies (he didn't), and that Saddam was presenting an actual threat instead of his usualy toothless sabre rattling I'm saying your full of crap.

We invaded Iraq at first because there were supposedly WMDs there which proved to be false. THen the justification turned to fighting the War on Terror, only there weren't any terrorists there until we invaded the damned place. Now it's supposedly about giving them Democracy, only the Iraqi people have demonstrated time and time again that they are either unwilling or unable to unify under a single rational, secular, democratic government.

Basically Bush took a reasonable harmless secular dictator and could keep the various tribal factions and Shia and Sunni fundamentalists from trying to kill each other and replaced him with a free-range cluster of religious and tribal clashes with all involved making a national past time of taking pot shoots at US troops.

But hey, rationalize that crap all you want to, GoodK. Just provide some concrete evidence justifying us having gotten into this situation that doesn't sound like slurping on the GOP dick.

I am defending it because I hate bad ideas and bad arguments. It is a bad argument to say that Hussein was an innocent victim and was no threat to us or "our interests abroad."

You dishonest son of a bitch... Show me where I said that Saddam was at all innocent. Then show how and why he was an actual threat to us. Instead of dismissing my questions and hiding behind some hack journalist how about you show something concrete for once, dumbass.

[_Droopy]

Hitchens is a republican shill. Guy's been a constant and consistent apologist for Dubya's inept

Hitchens has always been, and remains, a man of the Left. He was, however, on 9/11, "mugged by reality" to some extent, and this opened a new intellectual vista to him.

Some of us actually do grow and change intellectually and philosophically throughout life Angus.

Really, some of us actually do.