OT: Obama is dumber than a box of rocks

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I would argue the point that Obama has not held these positions for a couple of years, rather you are seeing the influence of people like Tony Lake in Obama’s campaign.

Obama is strongly pushing his original opposition to the war in Iraq, but the latest (fairly nuanced) foreign policy positions are new and the result of advice received from experienced policy hands like Lake.

I would still hold what Joe Biden said at the outset of the campaign, and that was that Obama was a foreign policy dilettante. Yes, this was simply a result of his being a newbie and lacking the requisite time and experience.

The Zakaria article went to great lengths and even greater pains to establish Obama’s “conservative” and “realistic” chops, but the fact remains that there is no body of evidence to support it.

You mention the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and it is a plum posting, especially for a junior Senator like Obama. However, what did he do there? I’m actually asking because I don’t know. It is worth looking at and looking up and would prove edifying to say the least.

As I said earlier, I could care less about his resume. I’m less interested in the shiny paint job and more interested in what’s under the hood.

I am also finding some of his latest policy shifts (NAFTA, FISA, gun control) of particular interest. This tacking back to center is going to create a little agida amongst the Dem true believers, no?

[gandalf]

Allan, question about improving conditions in Iraq, here are my views:

First, we should not be making a political issue out of Iraq here in America. “The Surge” has become some sort of new ‘loyalty-test’ for these new-age republicans, as they are never ones to miss a chance to play politics with foreign policy. I despise the McCarthyism.

Second, my uneducated view, I think improvements have as much to do with changes in tactics, better leadership under Petraus, reduction in ethnic conflict, separation of population into enclaves with control of traffic, Al Qaeda mistakes in country and Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda, etc. I don’t think 30,000 troops makes all that much of a difference given the overall numbers in uniform plus about as many on private payroll. Seems like we finally started figuring out how to fight this war around 2005. It’s good. So we should be able to drawdown our forces, correct? Iraq has improved, time to start leaving, correct?

What happens in Iraq is a sideshow, and doesn’t mitigate the larger strategic problem in the region. Iraq was not connected to 9/11. Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq. Neither is Zawahiri. Afghanistan is once again a narco-state controlled by drug lords. The Taliban are regrouping. Pakistan with its nukes is as big an issue as ever. Iran is stronger. Don’t even get me started about the Saudis, I told you what I think we should do there… (crazy, I know). So yeah, Iraq improving is good news. But it has diverted our attention and left us strategically weaker in our efforts against the real enemy: Sunni/Wahhabi Arab extremists and Al Qaeda. I should point out that it also left us weaker in terms of leverage with allies and other nations, and destroyed our credibility and moral standing.

Make no mistake about it, Iraq was about establishing a forward base in the heart of the middle east and controlling oil reserves.

An alternative post-9/11 plan would have been to reengineer our energy infrastructure, and go after AQ with ruthless, targeted effectiveness. Iraq was and always will be a big fucking blunder. Saddamn was ‘contained’, not a threat to us, and provided an important offset against Iranian influence in the region. We could have cleaned up oil-for-food corruption, taken away his money, bombed Baghdad a couple of times, and left him there for another ten years while we took care of the more important problems.

That’s my take. Not like I’m Rambo or anything, running through the jungles of Guat… 😉 Not taking anything away from that, BTW. You da’ man. But I have read Thucydides in full. I even translated parts of it from Latin to English, Latin class assignment back at that liberal bastion of anti-establishmentarism, Columbia U.

So, where is my reasoning above unsound? I’d like to know your views? Do you think invading Iraq was the right thing to do and will eventually be some sort of beacon of freedom in the middle east? If war with Iran goes down, it will help to have bases there, I suppose. Honestly, I think that’s been part of the neocon plan all along. Just as the Iranians have communicated their intents, so have the Project for the New American Century types. Neocon = American Nazi.

[gandalf]

Allan, question about improving conditions in Iraq, here are my views:

First, we should not be making a political issue out of Iraq here in America. “The Surge” has become some sort of new ‘loyalty-test’ for these new-age republicans, as they are never ones to miss a chance to play politics with foreign policy. I despise the McCarthyism.

Second, my uneducated view, I think improvements have as much to do with changes in tactics, better leadership under Petraus, reduction in ethnic conflict, separation of population into enclaves with control of traffic, Al Qaeda mistakes in country and Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda, etc. I don’t think 30,000 troops makes all that much of a difference given the overall numbers in uniform plus about as many on private payroll. Seems like we finally started figuring out how to fight this war around 2005. It’s good. So we should be able to drawdown our forces, correct? Iraq has improved, time to start leaving, correct?

What happens in Iraq is a sideshow, and doesn’t mitigate the larger strategic problem in the region. Iraq was not connected to 9/11. Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq. Neither is Zawahiri. Afghanistan is once again a narco-state controlled by drug lords. The Taliban are regrouping. Pakistan with its nukes is as big an issue as ever. Iran is stronger. Don’t even get me started about the Saudis, I told you what I think we should do there… (crazy, I know). So yeah, Iraq improving is good news. But it has diverted our attention and left us strategically weaker in our efforts against the real enemy: Sunni/Wahhabi Arab extremists and Al Qaeda. I should point out that it also left us weaker in terms of leverage with allies and other nations, and destroyed our credibility and moral standing.

Make no mistake about it, Iraq was about establishing a forward base in the heart of the middle east and controlling oil reserves.

An alternative post-9/11 plan would have been to reengineer our energy infrastructure, and go after AQ with ruthless, targeted effectiveness. Iraq was and always will be a big fucking blunder. Saddamn was ‘contained’, not a threat to us, and provided an important offset against Iranian influence in the region. We could have cleaned up oil-for-food corruption, taken away his money, bombed Baghdad a couple of times, and left him there for another ten years while we took care of the more important problems.

That’s my take. Not like I’m Rambo or anything, running through the jungles of Guat… 😉 Not taking anything away from that, BTW. You da’ man. But I have read Thucydides in full. I even translated parts of it from Latin to English, Latin class assignment back at that liberal bastion of anti-establishmentarism, Columbia U.

So, where is my reasoning above unsound? I’d like to know your views? Do you think invading Iraq was the right thing to do and will eventually be some sort of beacon of freedom in the middle east? If war with Iran goes down, it will help to have bases there, I suppose. Honestly, I think that’s been part of the neocon plan all along. Just as the Iranians have communicated their intents, so have the Project for the New American Century types. Neocon = American Nazi.

[gandalf]

Allan, question about improving conditions in Iraq, here are my views:

First, we should not be making a political issue out of Iraq here in America. “The Surge” has become some sort of new ‘loyalty-test’ for these new-age republicans, as they are never ones to miss a chance to play politics with foreign policy. I despise the McCarthyism.

Second, my uneducated view, I think improvements have as much to do with changes in tactics, better leadership under Petraus, reduction in ethnic conflict, separation of population into enclaves with control of traffic, Al Qaeda mistakes in country and Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda, etc. I don’t think 30,000 troops makes all that much of a difference given the overall numbers in uniform plus about as many on private payroll. Seems like we finally started figuring out how to fight this war around 2005. It’s good. So we should be able to drawdown our forces, correct? Iraq has improved, time to start leaving, correct?

What happens in Iraq is a sideshow, and doesn’t mitigate the larger strategic problem in the region. Iraq was not connected to 9/11. Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq. Neither is Zawahiri. Afghanistan is once again a narco-state controlled by drug lords. The Taliban are regrouping. Pakistan with its nukes is as big an issue as ever. Iran is stronger. Don’t even get me started about the Saudis, I told you what I think we should do there… (crazy, I know). So yeah, Iraq improving is good news. But it has diverted our attention and left us strategically weaker in our efforts against the real enemy: Sunni/Wahhabi Arab extremists and Al Qaeda. I should point out that it also left us weaker in terms of leverage with allies and other nations, and destroyed our credibility and moral standing.

Make no mistake about it, Iraq was about establishing a forward base in the heart of the middle east and controlling oil reserves.

An alternative post-9/11 plan would have been to reengineer our energy infrastructure, and go after AQ with ruthless, targeted effectiveness. Iraq was and always will be a big fucking blunder. Saddamn was ‘contained’, not a threat to us, and provided an important offset against Iranian influence in the region. We could have cleaned up oil-for-food corruption, taken away his money, bombed Baghdad a couple of times, and left him there for another ten years while we took care of the more important problems.

That’s my take. Not like I’m Rambo or anything, running through the jungles of Guat… 😉 Not taking anything away from that, BTW. You da’ man. But I have read Thucydides in full. I even translated parts of it from Latin to English, Latin class assignment back at that liberal bastion of anti-establishmentarism, Columbia U.

So, where is my reasoning above unsound? I’d like to know your views? Do you think invading Iraq was the right thing to do and will eventually be some sort of beacon of freedom in the middle east? If war with Iran goes down, it will help to have bases there, I suppose. Honestly, I think that’s been part of the neocon plan all along. Just as the Iranians have communicated their intents, so have the Project for the New American Century types. Neocon = American Nazi.

[gandalf]

Allan, question about improving conditions in Iraq, here are my views:

First, we should not be making a political issue out of Iraq here in America. “The Surge” has become some sort of new ‘loyalty-test’ for these new-age republicans, as they are never ones to miss a chance to play politics with foreign policy. I despise the McCarthyism.

Second, my uneducated view, I think improvements have as much to do with changes in tactics, better leadership under Petraus, reduction in ethnic conflict, separation of population into enclaves with control of traffic, Al Qaeda mistakes in country and Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda, etc. I don’t think 30,000 troops makes all that much of a difference given the overall numbers in uniform plus about as many on private payroll. Seems like we finally started figuring out how to fight this war around 2005. It’s good. So we should be able to drawdown our forces, correct? Iraq has improved, time to start leaving, correct?

What happens in Iraq is a sideshow, and doesn’t mitigate the larger strategic problem in the region. Iraq was not connected to 9/11. Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq. Neither is Zawahiri. Afghanistan is once again a narco-state controlled by drug lords. The Taliban are regrouping. Pakistan with its nukes is as big an issue as ever. Iran is stronger. Don’t even get me started about the Saudis, I told you what I think we should do there… (crazy, I know). So yeah, Iraq improving is good news. But it has diverted our attention and left us strategically weaker in our efforts against the real enemy: Sunni/Wahhabi Arab extremists and Al Qaeda. I should point out that it also left us weaker in terms of leverage with allies and other nations, and destroyed our credibility and moral standing.

Make no mistake about it, Iraq was about establishing a forward base in the heart of the middle east and controlling oil reserves.

An alternative post-9/11 plan would have been to reengineer our energy infrastructure, and go after AQ with ruthless, targeted effectiveness. Iraq was and always will be a big fucking blunder. Saddamn was ‘contained’, not a threat to us, and provided an important offset against Iranian influence in the region. We could have cleaned up oil-for-food corruption, taken away his money, bombed Baghdad a couple of times, and left him there for another ten years while we took care of the more important problems.

That’s my take. Not like I’m Rambo or anything, running through the jungles of Guat… 😉 Not taking anything away from that, BTW. You da’ man. But I have read Thucydides in full. I even translated parts of it from Latin to English, Latin class assignment back at that liberal bastion of anti-establishmentarism, Columbia U.

So, where is my reasoning above unsound? I’d like to know your views? Do you think invading Iraq was the right thing to do and will eventually be some sort of beacon of freedom in the middle east? If war with Iran goes down, it will help to have bases there, I suppose. Honestly, I think that’s been part of the neocon plan all along. Just as the Iranians have communicated their intents, so have the Project for the New American Century types. Neocon = American Nazi.

[gandalf]

Allan, question about improving conditions in Iraq, here are my views:

First, we should not be making a political issue out of Iraq here in America. “The Surge” has become some sort of new ‘loyalty-test’ for these new-age republicans, as they are never ones to miss a chance to play politics with foreign policy. I despise the McCarthyism.

Second, my uneducated view, I think improvements have as much to do with changes in tactics, better leadership under Petraus, reduction in ethnic conflict, separation of population into enclaves with control of traffic, Al Qaeda mistakes in country and Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda, etc. I don’t think 30,000 troops makes all that much of a difference given the overall numbers in uniform plus about as many on private payroll. Seems like we finally started figuring out how to fight this war around 2005. It’s good. So we should be able to drawdown our forces, correct? Iraq has improved, time to start leaving, correct?

What happens in Iraq is a sideshow, and doesn’t mitigate the larger strategic problem in the region. Iraq was not connected to 9/11. Bin Laden is NOT in Iraq. Neither is Zawahiri. Afghanistan is once again a narco-state controlled by drug lords. The Taliban are regrouping. Pakistan with its nukes is as big an issue as ever. Iran is stronger. Don’t even get me started about the Saudis, I told you what I think we should do there… (crazy, I know). So yeah, Iraq improving is good news. But it has diverted our attention and left us strategically weaker in our efforts against the real enemy: Sunni/Wahhabi Arab extremists and Al Qaeda. I should point out that it also left us weaker in terms of leverage with allies and other nations, and destroyed our credibility and moral standing.

Make no mistake about it, Iraq was about establishing a forward base in the heart of the middle east and controlling oil reserves.

An alternative post-9/11 plan would have been to reengineer our energy infrastructure, and go after AQ with ruthless, targeted effectiveness. Iraq was and always will be a big fucking blunder. Saddamn was ‘contained’, not a threat to us, and provided an important offset against Iranian influence in the region. We could have cleaned up oil-for-food corruption, taken away his money, bombed Baghdad a couple of times, and left him there for another ten years while we took care of the more important problems.

That’s my take. Not like I’m Rambo or anything, running through the jungles of Guat… 😉 Not taking anything away from that, BTW. You da’ man. But I have read Thucydides in full. I even translated parts of it from Latin to English, Latin class assignment back at that liberal bastion of anti-establishmentarism, Columbia U.

So, where is my reasoning above unsound? I’d like to know your views? Do you think invading Iraq was the right thing to do and will eventually be some sort of beacon of freedom in the middle east? If war with Iran goes down, it will help to have bases there, I suppose. Honestly, I think that’s been part of the neocon plan all along. Just as the Iranians have communicated their intents, so have the Project for the New American Century types. Neocon = American Nazi.

[gandalf]

Yeah, the tacking back to center? I’m not an Obama-maniac. I think he’s a politician, just like all the rest. What I see is someone who understands ‘grey’ issues though, and tries to facilitate compromise positions to move things forward. That’s the nature of legal work, BTW.

Did you read the NYT article about his time at UChicago? Very enlightening. I think he would bring this same kind of pragmatism to governing. So I think it’s a good thing. It will cause a backlash with the crazy-dems though. Sucks for them. They don’t have a horse in the race… Kucinich lost again, apparently.

And I do agree, the guy is YOUNG. He’s way intelligent. Incredibly talented. But young. Look at the exams he put together for the ConLaw classes, They’re hilarious. Definitely a guy from MY generation (Gen-X). Which may be A GOOD THING.

What have we had like 20 years now of crap-head baby boomers mortgaging our future, dividing us up into red and blue states, impeaching lying presidents and reliving Vietnam? Maybe it’s time to move on. This was one of the things I saw, Obama’s from MY generation. We generally don’t like boomers. Time for the old people to let go. And man, is McCain OLD.

[gandalf]

Yeah, the tacking back to center? I’m not an Obama-maniac. I think he’s a politician, just like all the rest. What I see is someone who understands ‘grey’ issues though, and tries to facilitate compromise positions to move things forward. That’s the nature of legal work, BTW.

Did you read the NYT article about his time at UChicago? Very enlightening. I think he would bring this same kind of pragmatism to governing. So I think it’s a good thing. It will cause a backlash with the crazy-dems though. Sucks for them. They don’t have a horse in the race… Kucinich lost again, apparently.

And I do agree, the guy is YOUNG. He’s way intelligent. Incredibly talented. But young. Look at the exams he put together for the ConLaw classes, They’re hilarious. Definitely a guy from MY generation (Gen-X). Which may be A GOOD THING.

What have we had like 20 years now of crap-head baby boomers mortgaging our future, dividing us up into red and blue states, impeaching lying presidents and reliving Vietnam? Maybe it’s time to move on. This was one of the things I saw, Obama’s from MY generation. We generally don’t like boomers. Time for the old people to let go. And man, is McCain OLD.

[gandalf]

Yeah, the tacking back to center? I’m not an Obama-maniac. I think he’s a politician, just like all the rest. What I see is someone who understands ‘grey’ issues though, and tries to facilitate compromise positions to move things forward. That’s the nature of legal work, BTW.

Did you read the NYT article about his time at UChicago? Very enlightening. I think he would bring this same kind of pragmatism to governing. So I think it’s a good thing. It will cause a backlash with the crazy-dems though. Sucks for them. They don’t have a horse in the race… Kucinich lost again, apparently.

And I do agree, the guy is YOUNG. He’s way intelligent. Incredibly talented. But young. Look at the exams he put together for the ConLaw classes, They’re hilarious. Definitely a guy from MY generation (Gen-X). Which may be A GOOD THING.

What have we had like 20 years now of crap-head baby boomers mortgaging our future, dividing us up into red and blue states, impeaching lying presidents and reliving Vietnam? Maybe it’s time to move on. This was one of the things I saw, Obama’s from MY generation. We generally don’t like boomers. Time for the old people to let go. And man, is McCain OLD.

[gandalf]

Yeah, the tacking back to center? I’m not an Obama-maniac. I think he’s a politician, just like all the rest. What I see is someone who understands ‘grey’ issues though, and tries to facilitate compromise positions to move things forward. That’s the nature of legal work, BTW.

Did you read the NYT article about his time at UChicago? Very enlightening. I think he would bring this same kind of pragmatism to governing. So I think it’s a good thing. It will cause a backlash with the crazy-dems though. Sucks for them. They don’t have a horse in the race… Kucinich lost again, apparently.

And I do agree, the guy is YOUNG. He’s way intelligent. Incredibly talented. But young. Look at the exams he put together for the ConLaw classes, They’re hilarious. Definitely a guy from MY generation (Gen-X). Which may be A GOOD THING.

What have we had like 20 years now of crap-head baby boomers mortgaging our future, dividing us up into red and blue states, impeaching lying presidents and reliving Vietnam? Maybe it’s time to move on. This was one of the things I saw, Obama’s from MY generation. We generally don’t like boomers. Time for the old people to let go. And man, is McCain OLD.

[gandalf]

Yeah, the tacking back to center? I’m not an Obama-maniac. I think he’s a politician, just like all the rest. What I see is someone who understands ‘grey’ issues though, and tries to facilitate compromise positions to move things forward. That’s the nature of legal work, BTW.

Did you read the NYT article about his time at UChicago? Very enlightening. I think he would bring this same kind of pragmatism to governing. So I think it’s a good thing. It will cause a backlash with the crazy-dems though. Sucks for them. They don’t have a horse in the race… Kucinich lost again, apparently.

And I do agree, the guy is YOUNG. He’s way intelligent. Incredibly talented. But young. Look at the exams he put together for the ConLaw classes, They’re hilarious. Definitely a guy from MY generation (Gen-X). Which may be A GOOD THING.

What have we had like 20 years now of crap-head baby boomers mortgaging our future, dividing us up into red and blue states, impeaching lying presidents and reliving Vietnam? Maybe it’s time to move on. This was one of the things I saw, Obama’s from MY generation. We generally don’t like boomers. Time for the old people to let go. And man, is McCain OLD.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Geez, you always throw lots of stuff out late at night. I’m reading this really good book and now I’m torn between reading that and responding here.

So, I’ll do the compromise thing and address part of what you said and come back to the remainder tomorrow.

As far as Iraq goes: I am torn, mainly because I did support the case for war and not due to the rationale of having a forward base of operations. I did find the casus belli somewhat compelling and, after Halabja and chem use during Iran-Iraq War and Saddam’s attempts to weaponize botulin, etc, etc, etc, I thought that removing him would have a salutary effect on the region. Had the war been prosecuted more efficiently (according to the DepState plan) we might be looking at a different equation. Of course, as my uncle said, If your aunt had wheels she’d be a teacart, and we’re not. I think we finish what we started and GTFO as soon as proves practicable (and by that I would defer to the theater commander).

Shit. I didn’t want to do chapter and verse on Iraq, but wanted to address the baby boomer question. I agree. I’m 43 and pissed at hell at these self-indulgent, Harley driving, Viagra popping, little pissants. Let the 60s and Vietnam go, man, and get with the program. I am all for new blood and remembering that 1968 is 40 years in the friggin’ past now. That is my major issue with these aging, counterculture “red diaper baby” leftists. They are all rooted in the past, with a soundtrack provided by Bob Dylan, but they all drive Benzes or Beemers and have vacation homes and mutual funds. Viva la revolucion, baby!

I’m with you on the issue of change, I just don’t agree that the agent of change is Obama. It sure as hell ain’t McCain, either (obviously).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Geez, you always throw lots of stuff out late at night. I’m reading this really good book and now I’m torn between reading that and responding here.

So, I’ll do the compromise thing and address part of what you said and come back to the remainder tomorrow.

As far as Iraq goes: I am torn, mainly because I did support the case for war and not due to the rationale of having a forward base of operations. I did find the casus belli somewhat compelling and, after Halabja and chem use during Iran-Iraq War and Saddam’s attempts to weaponize botulin, etc, etc, etc, I thought that removing him would have a salutary effect on the region. Had the war been prosecuted more efficiently (according to the DepState plan) we might be looking at a different equation. Of course, as my uncle said, If your aunt had wheels she’d be a teacart, and we’re not. I think we finish what we started and GTFO as soon as proves practicable (and by that I would defer to the theater commander).

Shit. I didn’t want to do chapter and verse on Iraq, but wanted to address the baby boomer question. I agree. I’m 43 and pissed at hell at these self-indulgent, Harley driving, Viagra popping, little pissants. Let the 60s and Vietnam go, man, and get with the program. I am all for new blood and remembering that 1968 is 40 years in the friggin’ past now. That is my major issue with these aging, counterculture “red diaper baby” leftists. They are all rooted in the past, with a soundtrack provided by Bob Dylan, but they all drive Benzes or Beemers and have vacation homes and mutual funds. Viva la revolucion, baby!

I’m with you on the issue of change, I just don’t agree that the agent of change is Obama. It sure as hell ain’t McCain, either (obviously).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Geez, you always throw lots of stuff out late at night. I’m reading this really good book and now I’m torn between reading that and responding here.

So, I’ll do the compromise thing and address part of what you said and come back to the remainder tomorrow.

As far as Iraq goes: I am torn, mainly because I did support the case for war and not due to the rationale of having a forward base of operations. I did find the casus belli somewhat compelling and, after Halabja and chem use during Iran-Iraq War and Saddam’s attempts to weaponize botulin, etc, etc, etc, I thought that removing him would have a salutary effect on the region. Had the war been prosecuted more efficiently (according to the DepState plan) we might be looking at a different equation. Of course, as my uncle said, If your aunt had wheels she’d be a teacart, and we’re not. I think we finish what we started and GTFO as soon as proves practicable (and by that I would defer to the theater commander).

Shit. I didn’t want to do chapter and verse on Iraq, but wanted to address the baby boomer question. I agree. I’m 43 and pissed at hell at these self-indulgent, Harley driving, Viagra popping, little pissants. Let the 60s and Vietnam go, man, and get with the program. I am all for new blood and remembering that 1968 is 40 years in the friggin’ past now. That is my major issue with these aging, counterculture “red diaper baby” leftists. They are all rooted in the past, with a soundtrack provided by Bob Dylan, but they all drive Benzes or Beemers and have vacation homes and mutual funds. Viva la revolucion, baby!

I’m with you on the issue of change, I just don’t agree that the agent of change is Obama. It sure as hell ain’t McCain, either (obviously).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Geez, you always throw lots of stuff out late at night. I’m reading this really good book and now I’m torn between reading that and responding here.

So, I’ll do the compromise thing and address part of what you said and come back to the remainder tomorrow.

As far as Iraq goes: I am torn, mainly because I did support the case for war and not due to the rationale of having a forward base of operations. I did find the casus belli somewhat compelling and, after Halabja and chem use during Iran-Iraq War and Saddam’s attempts to weaponize botulin, etc, etc, etc, I thought that removing him would have a salutary effect on the region. Had the war been prosecuted more efficiently (according to the DepState plan) we might be looking at a different equation. Of course, as my uncle said, If your aunt had wheels she’d be a teacart, and we’re not. I think we finish what we started and GTFO as soon as proves practicable (and by that I would defer to the theater commander).

Shit. I didn’t want to do chapter and verse on Iraq, but wanted to address the baby boomer question. I agree. I’m 43 and pissed at hell at these self-indulgent, Harley driving, Viagra popping, little pissants. Let the 60s and Vietnam go, man, and get with the program. I am all for new blood and remembering that 1968 is 40 years in the friggin’ past now. That is my major issue with these aging, counterculture “red diaper baby” leftists. They are all rooted in the past, with a soundtrack provided by Bob Dylan, but they all drive Benzes or Beemers and have vacation homes and mutual funds. Viva la revolucion, baby!

I’m with you on the issue of change, I just don’t agree that the agent of change is Obama. It sure as hell ain’t McCain, either (obviously).

[Author]

Posts