Trust me, that level of vitriol was only for the ignorance Mr. Wagner showed. If he does move into denying the Holocaust, there's a whole 'nother level.

He said nothing to indicate he denied the holocaust. You're just defensive on this issue, projecting an offense where none exists. Which leads you to make unnecessary claims:

Just to be clear, there a TON of information freely available on the internet about the Holocaust. Including original documents, pictures, etc.

Sorry, did anyone here claim otherwise?

I think Ahmadinejad and others have the RIGHT to believe any-fucking-thing they want, and I have the right to deride their ignorance and misuse of history in proportion to their distance from the truth.

Fact is, neither Gordon Wagner, nor Ahmadinejad, nor I, have denied the Holocaust. (I've toured Dachau, and was flabergasted.) However, you've projected that offense onto both of them, without warrant. Here's what Ahmadinejad said (apologies for cross-posting):

However, I believe the Holocaust from what we've read happened during World War II, after 1930, in the 1940s.

That's a pretty crappy denial. He says he believed it happened. He says when he believed it happened. He doesn't say it never happened. You just pretended that he did. I find this knee-jerk "defense of the Holocaust" thing to be very counterproductive to informed debate about important issues. And really, Holocaust denial is not a serious threat. It is the primary domain of the unhinged extreme fringe, and will never become part of a popular movement. Holocaust denial is a bit like Bill O'Reilly's "War On Christmas" and the Greater War on Terrorism: aggression under a figleaf claim of acting in defense.

Only a Salonik or someone painfully stupid would parse out what Ahmadinejad said in a desperate attempt to conflate that into the opposite of what the man clearly and obviously intended to say and to have it understood precisely in those terms.

Please explain this. I have taken a direct quote where he says he believes the holocaust happened. Why do you believe he intended to say something different? Can you substantiate that claim in any way whatsoever, or is it simply something you prefer to believe? Perhaps you can provide a quote for he unequivocally denies the holocaust. If so, I'm ready to read it.

I'm no fan of Ahmadinejad, but doesn't it strike you that making stuff up about him only serves to mythologize him into something much larger than he is?

Or is that your point?

Your "reply" was nonsense. I take it that you have no point.

Most important, though, is who cares? Why can't the moonbats just let this be? Bush has said on many an occasion, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresposible." He admits he did not live a very good life for most of his young adult years.

Who cares what's true, right Anonymous? Who cares if the worst president in US history, who got us into a war of choice based on lies which quickly turned into a disaster, actually shirked his own military responsibility? The lingering dead-enders that make up Bush's 25% support follow their leader largely because they believe in his character. But if that character was hopelessly flawed and built entirely on lies, who cares, right?

Most people care about these things, Anonymous. And one day the world will know that you and your ilk supported and defended the most disastrous administration in our nation's history.

...because it's made you go completely senseless:

Nothing in the history of U.S. journjalism will be so revealing as to the true nature of the left-learning anti-Republican animus in network news.

So, according to you, Dan Rather is a purely partisan journalist who is trying to dengrate Bush and all things Republican, right? And according to you, once the depositions start coming down, we're going to learn exactly how right you are, that network news is an anti-Republican organization. Am I with you so far?

So, perhaps you can explain why Dan Rather would initiate a law suit that is going to be so damaging to him and his cause.

Wait, Elephant, before you begin, here's a shovel. Okay, go.

Sidney's lack of masculinity does have some relevancy. For example, how about that Drudge lawsuit? Anyone who has seen Sidney knows that he cannot beat up a girl.

Does this imply that, had Blumenthal beat up a girl, that his opinion about Bush's AWOL status would now be credible? Please explain that one.

In fact, please explain how Rather's and Blumenthal's credibility has absolutely any relevance to Bush's military service. This story is about an upcoming court case, wherein all the facts will be evaluated, under oath and probably before a jury. The case will look at various documents, and determine whether or not a major media outlet actively suppressed a potentially damaging story about a sitting president. Dan Rather could be shagging Larry Craig in a bathroom stall, and Sidney Blumenthal could be molesting interns with Foley, and none of that would make a damn bit of difference about the facts at hand.

Do you believe the military should have had no respect for Bill Clinton, a veritable draft dodger?

Corporal, you talk about hypocrisy, but I believe there's a line in your bible about removing the mote from your own eye. You've repeatedly expressed your ire about Clinton being a draft dodger, for the fact that he received 2 deferments. However, you're notably mum about Cheney, who received 5 deferments.

Personally, military deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam doesn't bother me. Had I been drafting age back then, you can bet I'd have done everything in my power to avoid that quagmire. However, these deferments seem to have a special relevance to you, being very important when it's a Democrat and not worth mentioning when it's a Republican. Can you please explain this apparent hypocrisy for us?