Last night during the debate, Huckster said that "we" can't be sure that there really were not WMDs in Iraq and added some weird and idiotic analogy about not "finding all the Easter Eggs." He then displayed for the whole audience his utter lack of knowledge about foreign policy, geography and who our allies are in the region. He said that the WMDs could have been spirited out of Iraq into JORDAN!

In that moment, Huckabee revealed himself to be totally out of his league and most definitely not ready for the White House. He was trying, of course, to parrot the Free Republic Kool Aid crowd's contention that there were WMDs in Iraq but they were smuggled out through Syria, not Jordan. Syria in fact, is not a friend of the U.S., but Jordan is. But to Huckabee it makes little difference because he can't tell one Muslim from another nor does he care to. He hates all of them.

I was disappointed, but not surprised, that the obsequious, groveling (should I say, ass-licking?) Tim Russert didn't ask him to clarify the U.S. relations with Jordan. I doubt that Huckabee could have even named the head of state there, King Abdullah II bin Al Hussein, like his father before him, a strong supporter of the United States.

But after the debate, much to my surprise, Chris Matthews asked Huckabee how it was possible that these WMDs went out through Jordan when the King there was pro-US. Huckabee was like a deer caught in the headlights. He quickly said something so stupid and childish it was laughable. He said that the King didn't know about it! Oh! So trucks carrying WMDs came into Jordan carrying enough material to destroy his whole country and King Abdullah, who is no dummy, didn't know about it?

You know, this little man from Arkansas is as shallow as a mud puddle. The fact that he can't think on his feet and that he's not the sharpest tool in the shed is so glaringly obvious now.

It makes his "stick a pole in their ass if they don't like the Confederate flag" remark look like a routine comment from the village idiot.

No, your examples just prove that you see things that aren't there. Look at every one of the articles you have painstakingly provided (Thank you). The headlines are provocative, as they should be. But while you can get picky and take things out of context, you really did not prove your (you were the anonymous, weren't you?) point.

I don't have to go back through a year's worth of Salon articles to prove anything to you because I can read and I understood them the first time. I'm not the one who needs to prove anything because it's YOU who are making the assumptions. It is up to you to support your argument and you have failed to do so.

Now shut your hole, and know your role. And stop posting anonymously.