I've tried, largely unsuccessfully, to convince most moderates that I know that today's left is full of nutjob wackos. They may have reservations or misgivings about the war, and they believe that the Code Pinkos, American Friends Service Committee and Interational ANSWER are noble groups just expressing sane, but contrary opinion to those on the right.

Well, as evidence of the left's utter idiocy and insanity, I give you this from DUMB (Democratic Underground Message Board).

Like it or not, Saddam is the legitimate head of state in Iraq

the Invasion that unseated and captured him was illegal.

Yep, an unelected tyrant is the legitimate head of the nation of Iraq, but President George W. Bush isn't.

When challenged on that by someone who is not completely nuts -- you get this intellectually interesting explanation.

Toots (1000+ posts)
Mon Oct-24-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #28
70. Why when it is a fact

Saddam took his country by force in a brutal fashion but it was completely up front. Everyone knew it was happening and was helpless to change it. Bush* took office by deceit and corruption and held it through propaganda in the extreme. Legitimacy does not necessarily mean no blood loss. Saddam ruled his country for over twenty five years. He was acknowledged as the legitimate ruler by virtually every country on earth. I will never acknowledge Bush* as legitimate.

Can't you just feel the hate?