At the time of the Iraq invasion there was overwhelming popular support for the Administration policy across the political spectrum, e.g. Hillary Clinton. Only some fringe leftists, e.g. Chomsky, Ward Churchill and Jeremiah Wright (and B. Hussein Obama who was dependent on the latter's support in that particular IL senate district (home of the Black Muslim movement)) voiced any criticism.

With selective memory like that, it's no wonder you're a republican. But I have one question: how did millions and millions of protesters around the world who went out in the streets to march against a war we knew would be a bad idea, count as just "a few leftists"?

The real profiles in courage are politicians like John McCain, who tell it like it is - we have no choice but to perservere or face the certainty of annihilation of our American way of life.

Where to begin? Well, first, if McCain were truly courageous, he would be able to explain to us why he showed such bad judgment in supporting the invasion in the first place, seeing as 20/20 hindsight (also called common sense) showed that the invasion was unnecessary. Instead, he needs to cling to the current policy, while pretending all along that he was critical of it, although he wasn't. He's simply afraid to admit he was wrong, because he sees such an admission as a threat to his electability, and a limitation on his military ambitions should he get in. (Plus, from what I know about him personally, I also suspect he lacks the emotional maturity to admit a mistake, large or small.) Is that what passes as courage in your book?

Now, let's look at "the certainty of annihilation of our American way of life." Would you care to elaborate on that a bit? Please explain precisely how withdrawing from Iraq will result in our "certain annihilation." I'm not looking for vague bullshit claims; please provide a step-by-step process, where step 1 is withdrawal from Iraq, and step n is certain annihilation. I await your response.

And the truly sad thing about you, nazz, is that you only pop up here whenever the whim strikes you, you shit in the pounchbowl, you leave your slime here, and then you ooze off somewhere else.

You could just as easily be describing Shooter or any other authoritarians that come on this site. Each day, inevitably, their ideas are shown to be as bankrupt as an Enron employee's pension fund. Once that happens, they quietly slink off to the rock under which they normally reside.

Reading between the lines, this is their way of saying "Yes, you're right, you got me, now excuse me while I crawl away and cradle my ego." Which generally takes a day or two before they're back with a new (or more often, repackaged) line of bullshit.

I consider this an important service. By coming on here, and, bless 'em, really trying their damndest to defend the indefensible, they are showing the precise limitations of their own worldview, the same limitations which are writ large in the Bush Administration (and candidate McCain). Personally, I find this immensely valuable, and is one reason I continue to read these comments (and visit right-wing blog sites).

By definition, intelligent advocates of a particular worldview don't troll. I have "slummed" on some right-wing sites and occasionally had a decent debate; however, the level of abuse you have to filter out at such places generally takes all the pleasure out of the experience.

Well, would you call Bill Kristol and intelligent advocate, or a troll? His arguments are about as factual and honest as Shooter's and Anonymoose's. I don't think he's excused from being a troll for the fact that he pulls down 6 figures.

I've also spent a lot of time on right wing sites, and have also occasionally had a decent debate, but more often had to endure death threats and offers to sodomize my mom.

From surveying the entire scope of commentators defending Bush's policies, I would say they all match pretty closely. Some are more violent, some are more civil, all exist in a vacuum of honesty. I'd say Shooter and Anonymoose are perfectly representative.

Thanks, guys. We might not understand exactly how your worldview is limited and fanciful were it not for you!!

nabalzbbfr, I asked you specifically when asking how withdrawal from Iraq would result in certain annihilation, to list details and specifics, not bullshit. But, I guess you go with the argument you've got:

How about $100/gal and $50/loaf of bread for starters? With the help of your pals Chavez and unreconstructed British leftist unions? Not to mention internal fifth coumnists (e.g ELF/Greenpeace/PETA/Congressional Democrats) who maliciously sabotage our energy independence initiatives like ANWR?

Okay, now you and I and everyone on here now understands that your claim about certain annihilation was the bullshit ranting of a paranoid delusional. But just in case you wanted to try again, let me throw you a bone here and sketch out how you might make your case.

Please explain the process by which withdrawal from Iraq "certainly" turns into $100/gallon gas. Extra points for a bullshit-free, well thought-out response. Please chart out an estimated timeline, and the types of events that would need to occur. And if you can't be specific and substantial, don't even bother as you'll only make more of a fool of yourself.

Okay, begin.