This is very funny, and very sad. These people are expected to act like mature responsible adults and leaders, yet they behave with the maturity of pre-schoolers.

Myself, I can appreciate the statement that Mr. Dean made. Not for any validity to the war in Iraq, but to the actual bloodthirstiness of those who came out of the woodwork to criticize him so scathingly.

It is truely revealing of the ineptitude of those who criticize in such a way, that instead of arguing the issue, they attack the messinger. Truely the sign of people who lack the ability to understand and live among a polite society.

Who actually is the bloodthirsty traitor, Howard Dean who wants to preserve the lives of our soldiers, or mancow, a vile, pathetic, degenerate, loudmouth pervert, Howard Stern wannabee and cowardly armchair warrior who so anxiously and enthusiastically wishes to continue sending our soldiers to fight in what has turned out to be a bloody quagmire in Iraq.

We'll win in Iraq just like we did in Vietnam! And anyone who says otherwise is a no-good egg-sucking liar! We did win in Vietnam, right?

Seriously, though, I love Howard Dean! How can you not love somebody who makes the rabid right go ever more completely nuts by telling the truth? It would be nice if more Democrats would take the Chairman's lead, and be honest with the American public. As Jack Murtha says, the public is way ahead of Washington on this.

We already know the Iraq war can't be won, not just because Bush and his cronies are incompetent, but because, get this, they don't want to win. They want this war to go on and on and on. It's their biggest earner both politically and financially, and you don't cut off your biggest earner.

Careful, Tim. Bush told Matt Lauer that he didn't think the war on terror could be won. That's perfectly true, the same way the war on bank robbery can never be won. There will always be somebody with a new reason and a new idea for doing terror.

But -- you're playing Bush's game. Bush's remark to Lauer is utterly irrelevant to the war in Iraq, because that war is not part of the war on terror! If anything, the war in Iraq serves to provoke terrorists, not fight them.

The vile, scatalogical Mancow has become a mouthpiece of the Republican shill machine...the very same Republican party of morality, family values and all that is good and Christian.

If the Repugs actually thought dissent hurt morale and, furthermore, actually 'supported our troops', they wouldn't work tirelessly to twist and distort any anti-war sentiment into a vicious nationally publicized smear campaign. I mean, it only hurts the troops and emboldens the enemy if they hear it, right? So doesn't spinning an interview on a local San Antonio radio station (no doubt being constantly monitored by Al Qaeda agents) into a global story mean the Repugs are... *gasp*... willing and eager accomplices in the global distribution of anti-war dissent and the subsequent deterioration of troop morale? Logic, battered as it might be these days, yelps "Yes!"

Of course, you don't even have to go this far to sink this swiftboat. One need only point out the hypocrisy of calling Dean a 'bloodthirsty traitor' and Murtha an 'honest patriot that I happen to disagree with', despite the fact that Dean insists we should keep soldiers in Iraq for a year and a half longer than Murtha.