Gore was "wrong" on Iraq.

It's official: Putz is worried about a Gore candidacy.

The regularity to which he's linking to Gore stories is odd, given that Gore currently holds no office or official party position. And the level of the partisan vitriol of the links is increasing. Not content to just call Gore a hypocrite again and again for Gore's global warming advocacy, he's now linking to the likes of this.

GETTING IT WRONG ON THE WAR: Well, a lot of people missed the WMD issue.

The post, written by the right wing Powerline blogger Paul Mirengoff, begins:

Yesterday, I demonstrated Al Gore's incorrigible phoniness. This is a man who pledged upon his sister's death from lung cancer to "pour his heart and soul" into taking on the tobacco industry, but then campaigned on his affection for tobacco and took campaign contributions from the industry. And this is a man whose lifestyle represents the antithesis of what would be required to make a dent in dealing with the global warning problem which has become the centerpiece of his attempt to return to the limelight.

Mirengoff, goes on to claim that Gore's position on Iraq was "wrong in every particular." Except that whole part, of course, about opposing the war from the get-go.

This is what Bush followers and pro-war dead-enders have been reduced to in the face of such overwhelming public sentiment against their now-failed beloved neocon adventure: arguing that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq before it began are somehow still "wrong on the war" because some of the most dire, worst-case scenarios they offered didn't pan out exactly as predicted.

This is like telling your friend not to smoke, because (a) he could get cancer; (b) it increases your life insurance premiums; (c) he could get heart disease. Your friend subsequently gets 2nd-degree burns all over 90% his body from falling asleep in bed with a lit cigarette. Then, from his hospital bed, he says through the bandages, "See? You were wrong that smoking is bad for you. I didn't get cancer."

Not surprisingly, Bush followers like Putz do not apply this ludicrious standard to the Bush Administration, which argued that (a) Saddam had WMD; (b) Saddam had operational ties to al Qaeda; (c) therefore, Saddam could give WMD to al Qaeda. Those three interlocking justifications for the war were all wrong. But Bush was still "right" to invade Iraq.

Look for them to do the same thing to Obama. Not that it matters -- no one is buying this crap.