Do the Neocons ever give up their attempts to justify Bush's bungled, incompetent, wasteful invasoin and occupation of Iraq?

No.

And they never will.

The only question is why Slate, or anyone else, continues to waste space on people who have been 100% wrong on everything.

why?

That's the beauty of the writing trade. It permits perpetual, accountability-free bone-gnawing far far from the shrapnel and blood previously abetted (for someone else's good, of course). It's intended entirely to exculpate gutless cheerleading in the name of what everyone but the pom-pom wavers long ago recognized as a disaster. In this he mirrors Kissinger, a man he despises. (Who knew Hitchens was free of irony?) The two of them can now mutter in unison how the world is comprised of idiots who just don't understand brilliance.

someone is scared shitless that the bush doctrine might actually end up being a long term positive for the world.

then you'll really look like an asshole.

I like it: direct, pithy, and scatological. What would make it better? A lucid, fact-based definition of the "Bush Doctrine," five pieces of indisputable evidence confirming not only that doctrine has worked (however defined), but that there is a causal link between the doctrine, its implementation, and the purportedly great result(s).

Personally, I think I and some of my cyber-friends are directly responsible for the schism within the Iranian leadership. Why? Well, because back during the Bush Presidency, we mused that centrist Republicans who were anonymously quoted saying that they had heard Bush make some very bizarre and alarming statements might be planning to pull a "Caine Mutiny," and remove him from the Presidency on the grounds of mental incapacitation. Now, this may not seem at first glance like a call to rebellion among the theocrats of Iran, but the Web IS worldwide, you know, and some English-speaking Iranian cleric MIGHT have read our discussions, and MIGHT have passed on the idea to Rafsanjani, and -- hey, it makes just as much sense as Hitchens's claim, doesn't it?

someone is scared shitless that the bush doctrine might actually end up being a long term positive for the world

that would be the same day that pigs sprout wings and take to the air?

then you'll really look like an asshole.

For the time being, you and the few remaining members of the flat earth society, are the ones looking like an assholes.

I like it: direct, pithy, and scatological. What would make it better? A lucid, fact-based definition of the "Bush Doctrine," five pieces of indisputable evidence confirming not only that doctrine has worked (however defined), but that there is a causal link between the doctrine, its implementation, and the purportedly great result(s).

all you get is the scatalogical there professor. i let the hitch do the talking and respond to it.

respond to his observations and think of them as mine.

How come whenever IrvingChang shows up on a thread the conversation degrades to nothing? Shoo troll.

How come whenever IrvingChang shows up on a thread the conversation degrades to nothing?

it seems that after someone calls you on your bullshit you got nothing. that's why.

it seems that after someone calls you on your bullshit you got nothing. that's why.

You may think that, but its just because I'm ignoring you. To respond would be to feed the troll.

You may think that, but its just because I'm ignoring you. To respond would be to feed the troll.

you have the thought process of trig palin.

you have the thought process of trig palin

is there ANY level of outright nastiness to which you will not descend?

as someone else said, shoo troll.

Don't worry, irvingchang is such a pathetic troll that he can't even come up with original insults, he's been posting the feeble and distasteful Trig insult in multiple threads: <link>

it's nice to have a loonbat stalker