Go ahead, Mitch - you can out-misstate Foot any day of the week. Call the writer "pro-Hussein." That'll get him!

Open letter to Clown... substance, please! Any year now would work.

You sound like late stage troll fatigue is setting in, angryclown.

As possibly the only frequent commenter who's almost as much of a one trick pony as clown, I'll defend the pro-Hussein charge.
See, there's these two meanies, Hussein and Kim. Rotten to the core, both. Sane people loathe them both, both have committed genocide on a massive scale. Is it hypocritical to support regime change by military force against one and not the other? If one supports regime change by gunpoint in Iraq but not in NK is one therefore "pro-Kim?"
Absolutely not.
There's a minor difference. Thanks to a well-aimed boom-o-gram from Israel, Iraq was not a nuclear power... yet. However, Hussein clearly wanted it to be and was doing everything in his power to bring that about. He also has invaded his neighbors, also has bombed Israel, also has used WMD on his own people. Also a likely source for WMD to be used by terrorists against US territory and interests. Seems like a good plan to remove him before it comes to that.
We don't invade Iraq, Saddam is still there, stronger than ever for once again having thumbed his nose at the UN, and richer than ever thanks to the UN. So yes, if you don't support the invasion of Iraq you are, in a very real sense, pro-Hussein.
Kim already has the big one. Lots of mistakes from past US leaders on both sides went into that (although Maddy "glass of champagne" Albright was symbolic of Clinton and Carter's special coziness with the regime.) One has to weigh regime change in Pyongyang against hundreds of thousands of lives in Seoul. Someone who doesn't support regime change by gunpoint in NK isn't "pro-Kim," he's pro reality. Kim is exhibit A in the argument to oust crazies before they get that far.
Additionally, Iraq is at the heart of the Middle East, from which springs the Islamofacism that is our most imminently dangerous enemy. It is flypaper for our enemies in a way that NK isn't.
Nuance clown, nuance.

You have made more or less reasonable points, chriss, with less of a partisan tilt than is the norm here. Perhaps you can tell me, then, where's the nuance in calling people who disagree with the president's goals in Iraq, or who would have pursued them differently, "pro-Hussein"? There's none, of course. As Angryclown stated from the start, it's stupid and thuggish.

Nuance is not only overrated, it's a perfect cover for scoundrels and monsters. And lawyers.

Too many P's in that Red Star letter....

P.P.P from Saint P.

Learned Footie's Haiku thing sounds like Mr. Spock recitations......

We need more "There as a man from Nantucket...."

A.C. is all atwitter I see...

You are correct, the pro-Saddam label is not nuanced, because I see only two distinct sides to this: Military action to remove Saddam vs. any other combination of sanctions/diplomacy blah blah blah that would have left him in power, richer and stronger than ever and a constant threat to supply weaponry to our sworn enemies.
In my non-nuanced view I see:
Anti-Saddam = military removal (in light of the UN's inability to enforce its own mandates). Yes, there is room for debate over tactics and strategies but for the most part I find critics are comparing Iraq to some mythical mistake-free war that has never been fought.
Any other course of action = Saddam still in power = pro-Saddam.
I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if someone proposes a different course of action that would have removed Saddam from power as swiftly or as effectively.

Fine, I'll adopt your definition and consider you a backer of all the world's dictators you don't advocate removing through force. Two sides, tough guy.

Clown = Tough talk with no trousers.

Just like a journalist/lawyer.

It is not pro-Kim Jung Il to say that sadly he can't be forcibly removed from power without an absolutely monumental loss of life.
It is pro-Saddam to advocate policies that in a few years would have put him in the same sickeningly unassailable position as Kim.