NationStates Jolt Archive

So all you Reagan lovers, his National Security Advisor says we must withdraw now and calls Iraq a disaster.

Iraq: Get out now (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-odom4may04,0,2656287.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)

By William E. Odom
May 4, 2006

WITHDRAW immediately or stay the present course? That is the key question about the war in Iraq today.

American public opinion is decidedly against the war; even in the "red states," more than half of Americans want out. That sentiment is understandable.

The prewar dream of a liberal Iraqi democracy friendly to the United States is no longer credible. No Iraqi leader with enough power and legitimacy to control the country will be pro-American. Still, President Bush says the United States must stay the course. Why? Let's consider his administration's most popular arguments for not leaving Iraq.

• If we leave, there will be a civil war. In reality, a civil war in Iraq began just weeks after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein. Even Bush, who is normally impervious to uncomfortable facts, recently admitted that Iraq has peered into the abyss of civil war. He ought to look a little closer. Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That's civil war.

• Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists. True, but that is the price we are doomed to pay. Our occupation of Iraq also encourages the killers — precisely because our invasion made Iraq safe for them. Our occupation also left the surviving Baathists with a choice: Surrender, or ally with Al Qaeda. They chose the latter. Staying the course will not change this fact. Pulling out will most likely result in Sunni groups' turning against Al Qaeda and its sympathizers, driving them out of Iraq.

• Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up. The problem in Iraq is not military competence. The problem is loyalty. To whom can Iraqi officers and troops afford to give their loyalty? The political camps in Iraq are still shifting. So every Iraqi soldier and officer risks choosing the wrong side. As a result, most choose to retain as much latitude as possible to switch allegiances. All the U.S. military trainers in the world cannot remove that reality. But political consolidation will. Political power can only be established via Iraqi guns and civil war, not through elections or U.S. colonialism by ventriloquism.

• Setting a withdrawal deadline will damage the morale of U.S. troops. Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether to continue. This is certainly true in Iraq, where a withdrawal is likely to raise morale among U.S. forces. A recent Zogby poll suggests that most U.S. troops would welcome an early withdrawal deadline. But the strategic question of how to extract the United States from the Iraq disaster is not a matter to be decided by soldiers. Carl von Clausewitz spoke of two kinds of courage: first, bravery in the face of mortal danger; second, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for command decisions. The former is expected of the troops. The latter must be demanded of high-level commanders, including the president.

• Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. Were the United States a middling power, this case might hold some water. But for the world's only superpower, it's patently phony. A rapid reversal of our present course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world. The same argument was made against withdrawal from Vietnam. It was proved wrong then, and it would be proved wrong today. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the world's opinion of the United States has plummeted. The U.S. now garners as much international esteem as Russia. Withdrawing and admitting our mistake would reverse this trend. Very few countries have that kind of corrective capacity. We do.

Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the U.S. It was in the interests of Iran and Al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Hussein for his invasion of the country in 1980. For Al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the U.S. in the world, diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the transatlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror.

In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes Al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.

None of these prospects is possible unless we stop moving deeper into the "big sandy" of Iraq. America must withdraw now.

LT. GEN. WILLIAM E. ODOM (Ret.) is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. A longer version of this article appears in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine, www.foreignpolicy.com.

So all you Reagan lovers, his National Security Advisor says we must withdraw now and calls Iraq a disaster.
Evil Senile Traitor from Hell! Treason is this, and Cowardice.:mad:

Evil Senile Traitor from Hell! Treason is this, and Cowardice.:mad:
Yeah, and he's clearly a communist, too.

Yeah, and he's clearly a communist, too.
A Lt. Gen. Communist.

A Lt. Gen. Communist.
And French.

And French.
:eek:

And French.
Oh, shit. :(

:eek:
Yeah, it's true. I say we shoot him now and save the hassle of an easy treason trial.

Hell, at this point, Zombie Reagan, Zombie Nixon and Zombie Poppy Bush (he's not undead, but can you really tell the difference at this point?) could rise and tell us to get out of Iraq and neither Bush nor the 32% of the people who still worship him (because face it--at this point, it's only worshipers; blind faith, you know) will listen.

Hell, at this point, Zombie Reagan, Zombie Nixon and Zombie Poppy Bush (he's not undead, but can you really tell the difference at this point?) could rise and tell us to get out of Iraq and neither Bush nor the 32% of the people who still worship him (because face it--at this point, it's only worshipers; blind faith, you know) will listen.
A truer word was never spoken.

I am pleased to see a ray of common sense among the political animals that are former senior intelligence advisors.

General Odom certainly makes a powerful case for withdrawal at soonest.

He rather easily shoots down the lame excuses this administration has made for "staying the course."

The question remains will it be of any use?

President Bush has invested all of his political capital in this war, otherwise he has nothing left. No juice. His wife cannot convince anyone otherwise. Despite her insistence, her hubby is a lame duck President. It is doubtful his political coat tails will be long enough to survive the disaster looming for the Republican Party in November.

I am not of the opinion there is another "October surprise" left in the Bush administration. By the time the midterms roll around he will have ignored and decried his relationship with over 60% of the American voter so much, that his party will take a serious beating politically.

Now, I'm aware that this is May and we have 229 days to the mid-terms, and that is a lifetime in terms of political campaigns, but this President hasn't even reached the bottom of his disapproval slide, this guy is on his way to sub 30% approval...better known as Nixon territory.

Soon all Mr. Bush will have is his political base and that is precious little, and there is one thing I know about reactionist right-wing voters and the conservative Christian base is despite their ability to come out in an organized, fanatical manner, is when the numbers go that far south, they will stay home.

This President made is his bed with extremist reactionaries and religious fundamentalists in his party, it will be cold comfort when that 32% approval dips into the mid-twenties.

What he doesn't see is the fact that if he reversed himself and committed to withdrawing the troops and followed through, he could repair his bad numbers. He might not ever reach the giddy heights of a 65 plus percent approval rating ever again, but he could limp out to the end of his term with 50-50 or even 55-45 numbers.

He now faces Hobson's choice, not very attractive but better than barely being on political life support.

JC

I am pleased to see a ray of common sense among the political animals that are former senior intelligence advisors.
Excellent post. I have a couple of reactions.

President Bush has invested all of his political capital in this war, otherwise he has nothing left. No juice. His wife cannot convince anyone otherwise. Despite her insistence, her hubby is a lame duck President. It is doubtful his political coat tails will be long enough to survive the disaster looming for the Republican Party in November.
As an aside, I find it amusing that they tried to use Joe Wilson's wife to discredit him (as if being recommended for a job by his wife was proof he was incompetent), but they're now relying on Bush's wife to prop up him and his policies (as if being recommended by his wife is proof that he's competent). These guys just can't pick an attitude to cop, can they? And they denounced Kerry as a flip-flopper. :rolleyes:

I am not of the opinion there is another "October surprise" left in the Bush administration. <snip>

Soon all Mr. Bush will have is his political base and that is precious little, and there is one thing I know about reactionist right-wing voters and the conservative Christian base is despite their ability to come out in an organized, fanatical manner, is when the numbers go that far south, they will stay home. <snip>
We can only hope so. I'm not 100% convinced that the radical right and religious right will not still mobilize on their ideological platform -- anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-religion, etc. I have always thought that Bush et al. were playing a dangerous game courting these people. They were around long before Bush, Bush I, Reagan, or even Nixon, and they are the inventors of their ideology, not Bush. Bush did not invent the so-called "culture war" but by exploiting it the way he has, he has given them a taste of power they have not had in nearly 100 years (not since the Comstock days). Will they give it up out of disgust with Bush? Or will they abandon him and concentrate on continuing to try to take over Congress and the courts?

I think the November elections will show the true breakdown of the Bush "base" -- how many are worshippers of Bush, and how many are ideologues who were exploiting Bush as much as he thought he was exploiting them.

We can only hope so. I'm not 100% convinced that the radical right and religious right will not still mobilize on their ideological platform -- anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-religion, etc. I have always thought that Bush et al. were playing a dangerous game courting these people.
They weren't playing a game and they weren't courting them. They are them.

I love and welcome all these rightwing turncoats. They are doing the right thing, ethically and patriotically, by speaking out.

But when it comes to turning the Bush base, they obviously won't have any effect on the Bush hero-worshippers, and I don't think they are going to have any effect on those who support Bush's policies because of their own agendas, reactionary or religious.

But I do think they can have three good effects:

1. To encourage the center and left to speak out and mobilize by showing that there is not an impenetrable, rightwing front against us.

2. To encourage the media to stop being lapdogs and do their jobs properly by giving them controversies too juicy to pass up.

3. To encourage the corporate moneyed interests that support most politicians to give the hairy eyeball to pols whose policies are not working and are now being publicly discredited. Corporate interests do not like to get caught in critical spotlights and tend to pull support from pols who are too controversial and not effective enough. (Hell, even Delay got dumped eventually.) Their money is at stake in this game. A pol who can't deliver is going to cost them profits. It has happened before that pols crash and burn when their backers switch to someone else. There are a lot of major changes happening in the corporate world -- guest workers, outsourcing, scandals, wars, shifts to new technologies and fuels (the most interesting thing of all, imo). Profits are going to be on the line like never before in the coming 5-10 years. The corporations are going to have to find new ways to implement their changes without losing too much money. I think they are going to be a lot more picky about which government puppets they buy because they're going to need them to do things, not just not-do things. When experts like Odom come out against policies, it has a similar effect to financial experts giving reviews to companies on the stock market. You know, profit projections and risk assessments.

That's the way I see it.

I love and welcome all these rightwing turncoats. They are doing the right thing, ethically and patriotically, by speaking out.

Here's why I'm not so welcoming--they haven't spoken out against the original policy, which was the primary flaw. They seem to be saying "it was a good idea, but the people in charge fucked it up." It wasn't a good idea, however--it was stupid from the beginning and these people need to say so. Plus, I have to wonder how many of these people have changed their minds to the point where they're willing to actively work against the party in power and see them tossed out on their asses. Redemption requires more than repentance in my book--it takes active work to rectify the wrongs made possible by your previous support or inaction.

I love and welcome all these rightwing turncoats. They are doing the right thing, ethically and patriotically, by speaking out.

But when it comes to turning the Bush base, they obviously won't have any effect on the Bush hero-worshippers, and I don't think they are going to have any effect on those who support Bush's policies because of their own agendas, reactionary or religious.

But I do think they can have three good effects:

1. To encourage the center and left to speak out and mobilize by showing that there is not an impenetrable, rightwing front against us.

2. To encourage the media to stop being lapdogs and do their jobs properly by giving them controversies too juicy to pass up.

3. To encourage the corporate moneyed interests that support most politicians to give the hairy eyeball to pols whose policies are not working and are now being publicly discredited. Corporate interests do not like to get caught in critical spotlights and tend to pull support from pols who are too controversial and not effective enough. (Hell, even Delay got dumped eventually.) Their money is at stake in this game. A pol who can't deliver is going to cost them profits. It has happened before that pols crash and burn when their backers switch to someone else. There are a lot of major changes happening in the corporate world -- guest workers, outsourcing, scandals, wars, shifts to new technologies and fuels (the most interesting thing of all, imo). Profits are going to be on the line like never before in the coming 5-10 years. The corporations are going to have to find new ways to implement their changes without losing too much money. I think they are going to be a lot more picky about which government puppets they buy because they're going to need them to do things, not just not-do things. When experts like Odom come out against policies, it has a similar effect to financial experts giving reviews to companies on the stock market. You know, profit projections and risk assessments.

That's the way I see it.
Yes, but I have one problem with your post. Many of these people aren't "turncoats." The truth is that many thoughtful conservatives have been Bush haters since before 9/11. They see him as a traitor to the conservative agenda with regards to fiscal responsibility and with regards to nation building. Also, the borders. Let's not forget the borders.

When you think about it, how is Bush a conservative in any way except he hates gays and abortion?

Here's why I'm not so welcoming--they haven't spoken out against the original policy, which was the primary flaw. They seem to be saying "it was a good idea, but the people in charge fucked it up." It wasn't a good idea, however--it was stupid from the beginning and these people need to say so. Plus, I have to wonder how many of these people have changed their minds to the point where they're willing to actively work against the party in power and see them tossed out on their asses. Redemption requires more than repentance in my book--it takes active work to rectify the wrongs made possible by your previous support or inaction.


Odom did.

Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the U.S. It was in the interests of Iran and Al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Hussein for his invasion of the country in 1980. For Al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the U.S. in the world, diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the transatlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror.
I think many have. I remember all kinds of warnings from conservative columnists before the invasion. I think they're just getting more press now so it seems like they just popped out of the woodwork. Remember all those Republican military types standing on stage behind Kerry in the last election?

I wish Reagan came out of his grave and slapped Bush across the face.

I wish Reagan came out of his grave and slapped Bush across the face.

I wish Reagan would come out of his grave so I could use him as a pinyata (sp?).

I wish Reagan would come out of his grave so I could use him as a pinyata (sp?).
I wish Reagan would come out of his grave because then it would be like Night of the Living Dead. Can you imagine zombie Reagan running around california eating people's brains? That would be cool.


Braaaaiiiiiiinnnssss

Braaaaiiiiinnnnssssss

They weren't playing a game and they weren't courting them. They are them.
Bush is them. Cheney isn't.

I see a clear divide in the Bush admin between neocons and the religious right. The neocons clearly don't "believe" and don't give a rat's ass about the "culture war" or any of that moralistic bull except to the extent it generates money and distracts people from looking at what they are doing. They will gladly turn this country into a theocracy -- hell, they'd put the Taliban itself in charge -- if they could use it to cement their own positions in the power and profit world of transnational corporations. I'd like to emphasize the word "transnational." It is the ultimate irony that people like Cheney use words like "patriotism" and "treason" against their political rivals, when they in fact make no personal commitment to the nation at all and do nothing for it. All their wealth and power is based in corporations that have no real home country and are bound by no country's laws, in any real sense of the term. Everything they do as "public service" in fact generates profits for those very corporations.

I have always thought that the Cheney faction looks at the religious right the same way patrician senators of Rome looked at the mob -- a herd of ignorant lumpen to be exploited for money and power, used as a political weapon, manipulated with sensational propaganda and nationalistic myths, and paid off cheaply with bread and circuses.

But that is not what the religious right are, nor how they work. They are, in my opinion, a social/political demographic that has been part of the US since its inception, and against which the factions of liberalism and rationalism have been in a constant power struggle. I've been saying since the first Bush/Cheney campaign that, if Cheney and the neocons think they can control these people, they are out of their minds. They are our own, domestic "sleeping giant," and I think it was a grave mistake to wake them up.

Oh, and I call it a game only in the most cynical and Macchiavellian sense. :)

Here's why I'm not so welcoming--they haven't spoken out against the original policy, which was the primary flaw. They seem to be saying "it was a good idea, but the people in charge fucked it up." It wasn't a good idea, however--it was stupid from the beginning and these people need to say so. Plus, I have to wonder how many of these people have changed their minds to the point where they're willing to actively work against the party in power and see them tossed out on their asses. Redemption requires more than repentance in my book--it takes active work to rectify the wrongs made possible by your previous support or inaction.
Well, you know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, unless, of course, he's my enemy too.

Frankly, these people can't redeem themselves in my eyes. All these recantations are definitely a day late and a dollar short, but I am more than happy to applaud them and give them cake and call them patriots -- as if this were the Special Olympics of ethics -- as long as I can use them against my enemies.

But I haven't forgiven them at all, and if we succeed in driving the neocons out of government, I won't vote to let these turncoats back into it.

EDIT: I should make clear that I always give points to people when they say "I thought this way, but I now realize I was wrong." There are such people out there, and they do redeem themselves, imo.

Yes, but I have one problem with your post. Many of these people aren't "turncoats." The truth is that many thoughtful conservatives have been Bush haters since before 9/11. They see him as a traitor to the conservative agenda with regards to fiscal responsibility and with regards to nation building. Also, the borders. Let's not forget the borders.

When you think about it, how is Bush a conservative in any way except he hates gays and abortion?
When I say "turncoat" I'm kind of describing them the way the other side does. You know, undermining the opposition's rhetoric.

I don't consider Bush or anyone in his cabinet to be "conservative" at all. I consider them radicals who infiltrated and hijacked the Republican party because, unlike the left, they understand that there isn't going to be a multiple party system in the US for the foreseeable future. I seldom call them Republicans, and I never call them Conservatives. I call them neocons or neoconservatives, which was their original name for themselvs and would be the name of their party, if they conducted their business honestly. Their agenda and ideology are distinct from Republican and Conservative factions. And while I disagree with Republican and Conservative policies, I actively oppose (and personally despise) neocon policies. I consider them a cancer in the Republican part, and I know there are many Republicans who agree with me on that.

Yay for conservatives trying to put themselves in the limelight by saying something popular.

When I say "turncoat" I'm kind of describing them the way the other side does. You know, undermining the opposition's rhetoric.

I don't consider Bush or anyone in his cabinet to be "conservative" at all. I consider them radicals who infiltrated and hijacked the Republican party because, unlike the left, they understand that there isn't going to be a multiple party system in the US for the foreseeable future. I seldom call them Republicans, and I never call them Conservatives. I call them neocons or neoconservatives, which was their original name for themselvs and would be the name of their party, if they conducted their business honestly. Their agenda and ideology are distinct from Republican and Conservative factions. And while I disagree with Republican and Conservative policies, I actively oppose (and personally despise) neocon policies. I consider them a cancer in the Republican part, and I know there are many Republicans who agree with me on that.
yep

I think many have. I remember all kinds of warnings from conservative columnists before the invasion. I think they're just getting more press now so it seems like they just popped out of the woodwork. Remember all those Republican military types standing on stage behind Kerry in the last election?
Fair enough on Odom, but I don't recall that being the general consensus--even Kerry was more of the "it needed to be done; they just did it wrong" crowd (a main reason I held my nose when I voted for him).

Bill Odom is a sharp cookie. Many of us who worked on the analysis side of the house in the military, didn't always agree with the man, but he was always willing to admit a mistake and ask for the best way to fix it from the people who could.

Since politics is a forbidden subject for military officers when on active duty (and is forbidden for reserve officers when they are activated) no one in my old shop ever admitted publicly to any political affiliation, although it was clear to anyone with half a brain that just about 90% of the US Officer Corps is a subset of the US Republican party. This used to not be true, it was 50-50 for a long time until post 1980.

The military will almost always be a conservative profession, especially under a professional military system.

My analysis of the political consequences of what Bush 43 has done is based on a number of things, if it weren't for the fact conservatives were speaking out against this guy, there is nothing us liberals and moderates could do about it. They are just much more motivated to go to the ballot box than us. Frankly, that is shameful.

My grandaddy is the most apolitical man I personally know. He is a WWII veteran. His assessment of Bush is that Mr Bush is murderer. My grandfather is no liberal and he is not given to stating something like that without some sort of rational basis. He asked me if I voted for this guy, and I looked at him oddly, he then said, "I'm glad I raised a man with some common sense, that bastard is a murdering hoodlum who's crookeder than a dog's hind leg."

I was absolutely shocked breathless.

So here we sit on the horns of a dilemma, at a crucial point in US history, will our distaste for this guy actually galvanize liberals, moderates and independents to come out in the midterms and punish the Republican party for allowing this debacle to happen?

How many more excuses do we need?

I wish Reagan could pull a Roosevelt and be President again.


(Though he would have to come back form the dead....but I think Reagan, in all of his splendor, could manage that task)

I don't consider Bush or anyone in his cabinet to be "conservative" at all. I consider them radicals who infiltrated and hijacked the Republican party because, unlike the left, they understand that there isn't going to be a multiple party system in the US for the foreseeable future. I seldom call them Republicans, and I never call them Conservatives. I call them neocons or neoconservatives, which was their original name for themselvs and would be the name of their party, if they conducted their business honestly. Their agenda and ideology are distinct from Republican and Conservative factions. And while I disagree with Republican and Conservative policies, I actively oppose (and personally despise) neocon policies. I consider them a cancer in the Republican part, and I know there are many Republicans who agree with me on that.
Yep. Conservatives and moderate Republicans generally have what they misguidedly believe is in the interest of the people at heart. Neocons, on the other hand, support an uncompromising and dangerous agenda that isn’t even secret. Most people just don’t give a damn.

(Though he would have to come back form the dead....but I think Reagan, in all of his splendor, could manage that task)
Wouldn't that make him the messiah?:p

Wouldn't that make him the messiah?:p
Nope, just Zombie Reagan

http://www.zombiereagan.com/street/portrait.jpg

So all you Reagan lovers, his National Security Advisor says we must withdraw now and calls Iraq a disaster.

It's not the first time he's done so. He's basically said the same things (http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129) before.

<snip>
My grandaddy is the most apolitical man I personally know. He is a WWII veteran. His assessment of Bush is that Mr Bush is murderer. My grandfather is no liberal and he is not given to stating something like that without some sort of rational basis. He asked me if I voted for this guy, and I looked at him oddly, he then said, "I'm glad I raised a man with some common sense, that bastard is a murdering hoodlum who's crookeder than a dog's hind leg."

I was absolutely shocked breathless.
<snip>
:) I agree with your grandaddy. Once, during the first year of the first term, I walked into the lunchroom at my office and two lawyers were eating there (it was a law office), one whom I knew. She says to me, "Tell Carol here your opinion of Bush," and I said, as usual, "I can't stand that miserable son of a bitch." And the lawyer I knew burst out laughing and said to the other, "See?" Apparently, the one who didn't know me didn't believe I would just say it so bluntly, but the joke was on them, because that's the least hostile thing I say about him. I really don't like the guy.

So all you Reagan lovers, his National Security Advisor says we must withdraw now and calls Iraq a disaster.
BRAVO!! BRAVO!! BRAVO!!

http://www.uthscsa.edu/opa/presaward2004/eventimages/51.jpg

I wish Reagan would come out of his grave because then it would be like Night of the Living Dead. Can you imagine zombie Reagan running around california eating people's brains? That would be cool.


Braaaaiiiiiiinnnssss

Braaaaiiiiinnnnssssss


I would pay to see this...

So here we sit on the horns of a dilemma, at a crucial point in US history, will our distaste for this guy actually galvanize liberals, moderates and independents to come out in the midterms and punish the Republican party for allowing this debacle to happen?

How many more excuses do we need?

Well, as a progressive, I voted for Kerry in 2004. And no matter how often I shower, I still can't get that stench off of me. I have decided that this year I will sit out the election if there isn't some one truly worthy of my vote. I will never again vote for a candidate that opposes full civil rights for the gay community. Even if Bush managed to ammend the constitution and run for a third term. I won't do it. The Democratic party has slid so far to the right it no longer reflects my beliefs. Hell, just across the border in Oklahoma during the 2004 election the repubs and dems wer fighting over who hated gays more and who was the most conservative. I simply can't support a party that morally bankrupt. That's why so many don't bother to vote any more. What's the difference?

I voted for Dukakis in '88. He lost, but that was ok. Better to lose when following your beliefs than win while whoring them out. I voted for Clinton in '92. But then he went on to betray the gay community by signing DOMA and enacting "don't ask, don't tell." So, disgusted, I sat out '96. In 2000 I didn't see any real diference between Gore and Bush, so I sat out. Then, like I said, I voted Kerry in '04 because I though anything was better than Bush.

But is that really the case? I've decided it's not. It seems that the dems just using fear in the same disgusting way that the repubs have been for the last several years. And really, I'd rather have a real enemy in power than a false friend. It's a lot easier to fight an obvious enemy than one who pretends to be on your side. And maybe when the dems get tired of loosing races, they wil return to their progressive base. Until then, they don't deserve our votes. [end rant]

I wish Reagan would come out of his grave because then it would be like Night of the Living Dead. Can you imagine zombie Reagan running around california eating people's brains? That would be cool.


Braaaaiiiiiiinnnssss

Braaaaiiiiinnnnssssss
...chain him up in the shed and force him to play Doom with me.
Interspersed, of course, with varying notes on "voodoo economics" :D
and
his faith in end-times prophecy.

Hey, i actually like that idea. Perhaps i'll go exhume him and take him for a little swing through Haiti ...

I wish Reagan would come out of his grave because then it would be like Night of the Living Dead. Can you imagine zombie Reagan running around california eating people's brains? That would be cool.


Braaaaiiiiiiinnnssss

Braaaaiiiiinnnnssssss


Which would hardly be different to his antics during his life, would it?

Which would hardly be different to his antics during his life, would it?

No, but that wouldn't matter. Because then Putin would unleash Robo-Lenin from the Kremlin, and the two would duke it out, putrid flesh against cold steel, in the ultimate battle of two pointless ideologies.

I'll have my icepick ready just in case Robo-Lenin rampages.

If Reagan's National Security Advisor is so great, how come Reagan's dead?

If Reagan's National Security Advisor is so great, how come Reagan's dead?

Because you touch yourself at night.

Because you touch yourself at night.

Uh...I touch myself a lot more often than at night. <g> If that were the secret of getting rid of Uncle Ronnie in the 80's he wouldn't have lasted a week ;)