The style contains the same inimitable stupidity. Plus, there are the unsubstantiated "I'm in the military, so what I say goes" comments. Add to that Groenhagen's profound humiliation last week, to where he would be too ashamed to use that name again, and I think there's a good case to be made that Groenhagen has returned as Anonymouse.

Regardless, let the humiliation continue:

Uh huh...so there ARE hazardous materials there, huh. Ok...now if rocket propulsion is available, what have you got...GEE WMD.

This is the comment of a pure imbecile who has no idea what they're talking about. In the above example, apparently I could wrap a sheet of asbestos around a rocket and suddenly have a WMD. We'd better keep the Asbestos Abatement people away from the firework manufacturers, or else the smoking gun will be in the form of a mushroom cloud!

Darn right it's not harmless! So you are saying cleaning this stuff up was akin to cleaning the soil under many defunct dry cleaning establishments?! Yeah, THAT would make it a lot less stressful for the guys who had to do the cleaning I'm sure!

Groenhagen, the issue is not the degree of stress encountered by the HAZMAT cleanup crew. The issue is that the thing they were cleaning up was not WMD.

You see, of those 3 letters, there's an important one you're ignoring. (Hint: It's the "M".) See, "M" stands for "mass". That means "a lot" or "many." Those used, expired sarin canisters, while they may have caused problems for the cleanup crew, could never have caused MASS destruction. This is according to all reports. Therefore, at best, you might refer to those as WD's (weapons of destruction, a redundancy, but perhaps useful for the hopelessly stupid) but not WMDs.

Ah the key word here...ALMOST. Saddam had signed a ceasefire with the UN on the condition that he neutralize all WMD and allow inspectors to look to ensure all were gone AND to provide paperwork showing all were gone.

Are you saying that we're in Iraq on a technicality? That although Saddam was not a threat to the US or our allies, that it's still important that we engaged in the Iraq debacle at the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and at least $2 trillion in US tax dollars because, dammit, that will show these tinpot dictators not to leave a single trace of their WMDs!!

Wait, before you (predictably) provide your (unenlightened) answer, consider all the traces of WMDs scattered around the world. Are you demanding that we invade and occupy each and every one of those countries, based on this rationale?

You know, most guys in the military don't know the military background of our Congressmen in Washington. Know why? Becasue it doesn't matter...whether they have ever been in the military or not is irrelevant. We just look to see what they are doing NOW.

TRANSLATION: All a politician needs to do to get Groenhagen's support is talk a good game. His words do not need to match his actions in any way whatsoever. This is how someone can be against war when it means they have to risk something, but completely pro-war when they stand to benefit, and not be ridiculed for it: simply focus on trying to appeal to idiots.

Yes, republicans have their hypocrisy flags flying high these days. At least they have the good sense to crawl back under their rock with their tail between their legs when they get called on their bullshit.

In fact, I believe republicans who post their views on the internet are doing a very important service: they are letting the world see the vacuousness of their ideas, and demonstrating exactly how those ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny. You won't get that kind of honest assessment on Fox.

So, thank you, Anonymouse. Seriously, you are doing your country a great service by making a fool of yourself. Future generations will be forever in your debt.

Either the whole thing would collapse in a violent orgy of untold proportions, or, we'd have to backfill them with a 130,000 more GI's. Which would you prefer?

Brave, Brave Sir Anonymouse, you have presented a logical fallacy known as a false choice.

The fact is, "a violent orgy of untold proportions" is exactly what your president signed us up for when he invaded in 2003. Seemingly "new" strategies like "the surge(tm)", or filling the country up with extralegal mercenary armies, are all focused on one single objective: push the natural consequences of our ill-conceived invasion down the road, so it can one day be argued that this was somehow not the fault of the Republicans. Every single statement made by Patraeus or BushCo regarding Iraq are serving that single purpose. That's it. The Iraq war has no greater objective at this point.

Now, whether or not that consequence is fulfilled entirely depends on the Iraqis, and has absolutely nothing to do with what the Americans do. Sure, we can bring in more mercenaries, and send death squads around to "keep the peace." But, like pumping up the US economy with debt from China, such a Bush tactic is only deferring the inevitable: in this case, that eventually, US forces will leave Iraq to the Iraqis, to make of it what they will.

The question for now is, just how much do you want to abandon the US character of benevolence and its moral authority in pursuit of futile objectives? The Republican answer: "what benevolence and moral authority? Those won't make me rich!" The answer from the rest of the world: "Get the troops out. Now."