90 Comments

1. mrbones:

The L.A. Times says 100,000. But that’s not the point, is it? As we all know, you wouldn’t legitimize a protest, no matter how many people showed. You appear to think that the accelerating disgust with the war is a figment of the liberal imagination.

It ain’t.

Jan 28, 2007 - 10:30 am 2. Godzilla:

It’s not too hard to figure out where the 100,000 figure came from, given this coverage by the Washington Times

Organizers said they exceeded their goal of 100,000 attendees. Police do not give official crowd estimates, but some officers said privately that the crowd appeared smaller.

I’d go with the police eye witnesses (who have more experience judging crowd sizes) over the organizers’ propaganda bullshit. Notice the quotes from individuals crying that the dems didn’t show up. Heh. Well, we know where one of those dems, John F. Kerry was.

Jan 28, 2007 - 11:24 am 3. Terrye:

mrbones:

Did you look at some of the loons at the protest? My God, I would not claim them. Lots and lots of communists and obscene posters and in general weirdness that most people just do not want to be associated with.

BTW, the only comparison I would make between Viet Nam and Iraq is what will happen if we just run away. But then again if we are to believe the polls almost half the Democrats in this country either do not want the US to succeed in Iraq or just can not make up their minds whose side they are on, the American military and the Iraqi civilians who will die if we do not succeed or the mass murdering terrorists. That says a lot about the liberal imagination.

Because however, tired of the war Americans maybe most of them still want to see the US succeed. So it is not Roger who is out of step here.

Jan 28, 2007 - 12:24 pm 4. Paul:

“You appear to think that the accelerating disgust with the war is a figment of the liberal imagination.

It ain’t.”

Maybe so. But it begs the question, were we to have fair media coverage how differently would the public view the war?

Also, a common assumption by the left is that everyone who is dissatisfied with the administration’s conduct of the war is against it’s prosecution. This is simply not true. There is a very large contigent who believes we haven’t fought hard enough and is disgusted with the PC approach to warfare, courtesy of Gramscian left’s poisoning of American culture.

Jan 28, 2007 - 2:15 pm 5. Terrye:

Paul:

In fact, if one is to believe polls [and as we all know the eft seems to think we should govern by them} the number of people who are willing to do whatever it takes is about 37% is a little more than double the number who want immediate withdrawl at 15%.

People just want it over, they are tired of the violence and who can blame them. But that does not mean they agree with Cindy Sheehan when she says this country has never been worth fighting for.

Jan 28, 2007 - 3:00 pm 6. markus:

I’m pretty sure that DC marches are never terribly effective, from an antiwar perspective. That is especially the case now. The only march that politicians pay attention to was the march to the polls that took place last November. And the next march, scheduled for November 2008. Instead of braving the cold side by side with Jane Fonda and every other divisive or extremist figure that the prowar diehards are most eager to identify, why not just stay home, and listen to Sunday morning TV? There, you can hear Arlen Spector assert that Congress certainly has the right to limit Bush’s continued addiction to plugging coins into the Iraqi slot machine. You can also hear Mitch McConnell, of all people, say that Bush’s latest plan to get pigs to fly is “their [the Iraqi government] absolute last chance.”

The fat lady is getting ready to sing. Not sure, her name may even be Hillary.

Jan 28, 2007 - 4:06 pm 7. Terrye:

markus:

Well Hillary is going to have to decide where she stands, after all she voted for the war. But then again Democrats by and large supported the war, they had believed for years that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and yet somehow {since they have that D behind their names} have been able to get away with playing both ends against the middle. Maybe you can vote for Obama so that he can bomb Iran and surrender to AlQaida in Iraq.

And yes, while it is true that the march that matters is the one to the polls, even then things are not always what they seem.

For instance the Blue Dog Democrats may actually keep their campaign promises and vote more like Lieberman than Pelosi.

Jan 28, 2007 - 4:55 pm 8. stu:

The idea that we will only suffer the repurcussions of Viet Nam is to minimize the significance of our retreat. As opposed to Viet Nam we will be left with an Al Queda hub in Sunni Iraq with possible access to Iraqui oil to fund jihad. The democratic complaints about our booming economy will all sound very unworldly when considered against the world wide depression that will come about if the whole mid-east goes up in flames. No sane adult can really imagine our bailing,given these potential consequences. At least with the Viet Nam denoument we got the benefit of the creative and talented Southeast Asians who have added to our culture and cuisine.

Jan 28, 2007 - 6:16 pm 9. Luther McLeod:

“are never terribly effective”

Actually Markus you are incorrect. The gatherings of 69 and 70 averaged around 450,000 people, perhaps more. They did make an impact, as furthered by the media. I was there. I actually sucked up a bit of the tear gas. I’ll tell you what I saw. A peaceful demonstration, until the rabid eyed young among the demonstrator’s, starting throwing solid object’s toward the cop’s. All’s fair after that. A double row of transit busses encircled the White House. Rumor’s were a company of 82nd Airborne where on the White House grounds, just in case. Heady times among the 19 year olds. And, if it makes you feel good, it worked. Though it was despicably wrong.

Good words Stu.

The only similarity I see between VN and Iraq, is that the same people calling for surrender then, are calling for the same now. They could give a sh*t less about the consequences. It is all about taking the USA down to size, for them. White guilt, communist and gramscian influence are still having their effect.

BTW Stu, I agree about the South Vietnamese who came into our country, all in all, a positive influence. Unlike other’s who may be entering now.

Jan 28, 2007 - 7:55 pm 10. Buddy Larsen:

Interesting essay here, stu, along those very lines. As you say, any sane person realizes that OPEC will be making accomodation with the jihadis as soon as we start leaving our keystone position in the mideast. You’re right about the world-wide depression. The jihadis aren’t fools, they know their oil is finite, and won’t need volume sales (as do the autocrats) anyway under their heavy thumbs. They’ll go for wealth transference, glory to the caliphate. Maybe a little WWII-size thing will pop up somewhere along the line, as none of the big powers can afford to live with any other big power having better access to the lifeblood of industrial economies. What we’re trying to do is preserve the open-market allocation that alone will keep these wars small until we can stop the jihad.

Jan 28, 2007 - 7:58 pm 11. Buddy Larsen:

The lefties just can’t see–not an inch ahead of the next instant. Too bad, too, too bad, for us all.

Jan 28, 2007 - 8:32 pm 12. Buddy Larsen:

oops–i take that back–forgot the GOP senators doing the same damn thing.

Jan 28, 2007 - 8:56 pm 13. Lem:

“My conscience won’t let me go shoot my brother, or some darker people, or some poor, hungry people in the mud for big, powerful America, and shoot them for what? They never called me ‘nigger.’”

That quote comes from Muhammad Ali while speaking out against the Vietnam war. I’m intrigued by the celebrated quote because it implies a threshold from witch not even Ali, a pacifist boxer and Muslim convert, would shun a fight.

While it has been impossible for some quarters to link the war on terror to the liberation of Iraq, most Vietnam era dissenters believed racism to be a far more formidable threat than the spread of communism.
Now, while the same dissenting groups look to Vietnam for inspiration, I find that the new head of Aryan Nation is praising al Qaeda and wishes to be their ally. Here is a quote. “You say they’re terrorists, I say they’re freedom fighters. And I want to instill the same jihadic feeling in our peoples’ heart, in the Aryan race, that they have for their father, who they call Allah.”
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/schuster.column/index.html

Is it possible that it is easier for a mutant fringe group like the Arian Nation to spot an ally than it is for the left with all that university brain trust to spot a deadly enemy?

Jan 29, 2007 - 7:44 am 14. markus:

Luther — the backlash against the antiwar movement, and the cultural movement of which it was a part, that was the primary reason that Republicans won 49 states in 1972. The war ended not because of marches, but because Nixon and Kissenger came to the conclusion, especially after meeting Mao and Brezhnev, that the U.S. government could afford to publicly admit what they (and the antiwar movement) had already known for many years, i.e. the Viet Cong and the Khmer Rouge posed no threat to anyone but the unlucky people who came under their governance.

Stu — “At least with the Viet Nam denoument we got the benefit of the creative and talented Southeast Asians who have added to our culture and cuisine.”

They were the cream of the crop of Vietnam — business people and the educated elite — and they certainly have contributed much to the USA. We owed it to them, after all the napalm that we dropped.

I have no doubt that some of their best and brightest Iraqis and Kurds will soon be seeking to emmigrate to America at some point soon. The sooner we can admit that we haven’t liberated them, we’ve actually helped to destroy their country, the sooner we can allow them to come here for a better life, to their benefit and ours.

Jan 29, 2007 - 8:50 am 15. Hawk123:

After following the Blog for a long time, I’ve registered to post.
My wife and I took our daughters down to DC for the weekend-National Gallery, Air and Space, Archives and the useful idiots on the Mall. We walked around them all day on Saturday.
There were probably about 10,000 as a best guess. The speakers were at 3rd street; the crowd was in the center of the mall back to about seventh street, making it very inconvenient to cut across from the air and space museum to the Nat. Gallery. Madison Drive and Jefferson on either side of the mall were quite clear.
The assembly was composed of a lot of useful idiots, 16 year old skateboard punks, college kids in tie-dye out for the day because the weather was nice and it’s like soooo coool to protest, 70’s left-overs–not too palatable when re-heated after 30 years, and a depressing number of 60 and 70 year olds, well dressed and well-fed. Imho if saturday had been cold like friday or cold and snowy like sunday, it would have fizzled even worse, just not enough commitment.
Signs were by Moveon.org and Unitedforpeaceandjustice, with some smaller suppliers like the socialist workers, and some profanity laced homemade efforts. Transportation was provided for at least some of the assembly; i was noticing the busses parked on Madison and Jefferson. My wife and eldest girl were disappointed to have forgotten their peace thru superior firepower buttons at home….

Jan 29, 2007 - 9:47 am 16. Buddy Larsen:

Markus, compliments on a rather spectacular reductio.

Jan 29, 2007 - 11:19 am 17. Rhod:

Just more of the waste product of materialism.

Jan 29, 2007 - 1:25 pm 18. markus:

Thanks, Buddy. Your comments about Republican Senators are spot-on as well. It is they who will stop this war, not whichever pinko leftist you care to name that showed up in DC over the weekend. They and the spoiled American voter that wants the easy life, that doesn’t particularly want to fight for a worldwide, unipolar democratic capitalist imperium, unless it can be done via airpower alone. The same voters that Republicans (and to a lesser extent, Democrats) have spent years coddling, telling them their only patriotic duty was to be spoiled, effete consumers.

Jan 29, 2007 - 1:31 pm 19. David:

One esimate out there is 13,000, which sorta squares with what I say on C-Span. The white on Orange football scrimage at OKState gets 16,000 on a cold and rainy day. This is a bad showing.

Jan 29, 2007 - 2:01 pm 20. dclydew:

Well, I think that there may be several differences.

First, the society that we live in now seems far different than the society of the 60’s. We no longer have a cohesive young generation, not my generation (Gen X born ~75 or so) nor the Information generation (or whatever the heck we’re gonna call the 19 year olds now). There’s little cohesion among Americans anymore, let alone a single generation. Our choices in entertainment vary wildly, our views on politics seem much more diversified than in the 60’s (based on my parents commentaries and what I’ve read). For example, my friends tend to vary between Liberal, uninterested or small ‘l’ libertarian. The minority that actively care about politics at this point appear to have very different views about how it should be dealt with, the most that they can agree on is that Iraq appears to have been a badly managed war. Among the liberal people my age and younger, I see only a small subset that think that protests and vigils are useful… most consider them passe’. Among the more libertarian people I know, they don’t want to be seen as associated with such nonsense. Most of my friends think that we did our protest already and it worked quite well. Here in Ohio we helped shake up the federal government and we pretty much routed the Republicans at the State level. That should mean more to both parties than any protest in DC.

Also, a quick note;

Stu wrote:

As opposed to Viet Nam we will be left with an Al Queda hub in Sunni Iraq with possible access to Iraqui oil to fund jihad.

Actually, once we leave Iraq it’s far more likely to be a Shiite Iraq, since they are the majority as well as the current majority government (complete with death squads and Al Sadr). The Sunni were the people in charge when Saddam was in power.

This may be important because Iran is usually considered mostly Shia, while Saudi Ariba and Al’Queda are Sunni (and have a serious problem with the Shia).

In other words, crazy people like al Sadr are enemies of crazy people like Bin Laden or the now Virgin Laden al-Zarqawi. If we leave, its more likely that a Shia dominated government would expel any AQ groups (since one of the major reasons for the existence of AQ is destruction of Shia). It’s also likely that the Shia dominated government would form close ties with Shia dominated Iranian government. Of course, that may happen even if we ‘win’ (depending on the definition of win).

I’m not sure that either situation would be good for the US.

Jan 29, 2007 - 2:31 pm 21. Buddy Larsen:

Markus, clever boy, you know i meant that as a jab. However, I do agree with so much of your post that i’ll just shut up and let your ruse stand.

Jan 29, 2007 - 2:50 pm 22. Captain Hate:

Markus, do you even know anybody from Vietnam that you’re basing your posts on? Because I went to school with one who wouldn’t have much regard for your, and your ilk’s, condescending sympathy.

Jan 29, 2007 - 3:43 pm 23. Luther McLeod:

Disagree Markus. Nixon’s major slogan in 71 was “get out of the war, peace with honor.” Much of that sentiment driven by “protest.”

It took him several years of effort to come away with what he and Kissinger considered honor. South Vietnam was a small pawn in the world of chess match as seen by Kissinger. Kissinger was quite willing to sacrifice SVN for his greater Geo-political goals. And, actually, their plan may have actually worked, but for, of course, the “honor” of our withdrawal being stabbed in the heart by the democratic congress in refusing to fund money for food, fuel and ammo for SVN in 75.

The Viet Cong were a spent force after 68’s Tet. The only formidable force after that were mainline NVA.

But I meander. I see nothing in your words marcus that would dissuade me from thinking that you just wish America too be taken down several or more notches. You appear to believe in the philosophy of everyone is the same, none can be exceptional. You seem unable to place the proper weights upon the scales. This country has done some bad things. I just see you as being unable to place the good things this country has done on the scale opposite the bad. Perhaps because, if you did, you would see the beam tilt in a direction you would not care for. Just doesn’t fit your world view, ya know.

Jan 29, 2007 - 5:51 pm 24. Buddy Larsen:

well, I watched O’Reilly’s show this eve–he had sent a reporter to the DC rally, who got in a few questions to some of the protest stars, and i’ve got to say, the level of honesty & thoughtfulness expressed was very, very, very low. These people are partying, and publicizing themselves, i think, more than they’re concerned about any of the issues they’re using as vehicles. If Al Gore was president, all-else-equal, they’d be demonstrating FOR the war. Fundamentally unserious, and we’re nutz for giving them any attention.

Jan 29, 2007 - 8:41 pm 25. markus:

Luther — I used to your typical liberal internationalist, and it was that attitude that got me supporting the intervention in Iraq in its early stages. Leave it to President Bush, and the post 9/11 neocon hijacking of his foreign policy, to bring out my long-dormant patriotic and NATIONALIST side.

I see the United States as on balance a great force for good in the world. It does its most good acting as beacon for the world, an example of liberty and opportunity. That is why it is so important that we pick and choose our foreign obligations and entanglements wisely and carefully. Leave it to Bush to align me with Pat Buchanan: I want to live in a republic, not an empire. (Though, I’d certainly disagree with Buchanan on what type of laws that I would want to pass in that Republic.)

Andrew Bacevich, in the current issue of the American Conservative, says it much better than I could:

“Neoconservatives like Kagan believe that the United States is called upon to remake the Middle East, bringing the light of freedom to a dark quarter of the world. Pseudo-realists like Baker believe that the United States can manipulate events in the Middle East, persuading others to do our bidding. Both views, rooted in the conviction that Providence has endowed America with a unique capacity to manage history, are pernicious.

“The way forward requires abandoning that conviction in favor of a fundamentally different course. A sound Middle East strategy will restore American freedom of action by ending our dependence on Persian Gulf oil. It will husband our power by using American soldiers to defend America rather than searching abroad for dragons to destroy. A sound strategy will tend first to the cultivation of our own garden.

A real course change will require a different compass, different navigational charts, and perhaps above all different helmsmen, admitting into the debate those who earn their livelihoods far from the imperial city on the Potomac. A foreign policy worthy of the name will reflect the concerns and aspirations of ordinary Americans. It?s that last prospect that Frederick Kagan and James Baker most fear.”

Jan 30, 2007 - 8:27 am 26. markus:

Luther — one more thing, just how many more American lives do you think that we owed to the people of South Vietnam, in order to assure their freedom?

Jan 30, 2007 - 8:53 am 27. Buddy Larsen:

Markus, USA was out of the ground-combat role in VN, when in 1975 congress pulled the plug on political/logistical support for its ally the Republic of South Vietnam.

And anyway no one, least of all Luther (a VN combat vet) is going to assert that the US Gov’t (as opposed to the US military) fought that war well. Because it was fought poorly politically, did it establish a form that we must always follow?

As far as consequences, your final para is extremely disingenuous. First, USA was over the hump on combat losses (search “Vietnamization”), and second, the follow-on from 1975 to 1980 was global, and ignited, or let ignite, the war we are fighting now. So, even if, in your Buchanite frame, American lives lost are the only matter (and the millions of foreigners don’t count), then you might want to add the American losses since 1975, and those in store going forward, to the decision congress made in 1975.

Why beat up congress for ancient history you might ask? Because congress is trying to do it again. The WWII tragedy MAY well be trying to repeat (historical forces do that, you know), wherein a possible loss of 6,000 in the mid 30s (say, stopping Hitler at the Rhineland reoccupation) became 60,000,000 within the next ten years.

Jan 30, 2007 - 9:25 am 28. markus:

Buddy –

When you refer to American losses since 1975, are you talking about losing our Shah in Iran, allowing Hussein to come to power in Iraq, getting our Marines blown up in 1983, supporting the rise of the Taliban in the 1980’s as a bulwark against godless Communism? None of these things had anything to do with any sort of “ripple” effect from our pulling out of supporting the Republic of South Vietnam. They had much more to do with our ill-conceived ambition to play the late twentieth century version of “the Great game” in that snakepit of a region — helping to engineer coups in Iran and Iraq, supporting Begin in his refusal to abide by the Camp David Accord provisions regarding autonomy talks w/ the Palestinians, etc..

I didn’t know that Luther was a Vietnam Vet. Not sure when he was over there, but regardless of whether it was under Johnson or Nixon, I’d like to ask why he isn’t more angry at the people who put him and his brothers in harms way for a cause that had nothing to do with vital U.S. security interests, and kept him there AFTER they knew this to be the case.

Jan 30, 2007 - 10:55 am 29. Rhod:

Markus:

I can’t speak for Luther, but I’m a Vietnam vet, class of ‘66 – ‘67, 25th Infantry Division…when the war was still considered a counter-insurgency. I’m not angry; neither are my sons, one of whom is in Afghanistan, another on his second tour in Baghdad, with a third having just came home from Iraq. I’ll leave your conclusion about Vietnam in place. The Cold War had many facets, Vietnam was one of them, and I think D Brinkley put it best when he described it as the last battle of WW II.

At any rate, a poll of Vietnam vets, the source of which I cannot identify, found that about 75% of us would do it again even knowing what we know now. Combat veterans, as a class, in my experience, have risen above the emotional and ideological trivialities which so preoccupy people like you. We don’t see ourselves or each other as victims. Thanks for nothing.

The angry, resentful Vietnam vet is a fiction, an invention of people who see the world as you do, with every historical misfortune, mistake or calamity seen through the lens of justice or injustice. Shit happens. Get over it. We have. I doubt you were even alive at the time.

Jan 30, 2007 - 11:12 am 30. Buddy Larsen:

Markus, you make my case.

Look, instead of a book-length point-by-point, instead imagine a bell curve plotting the 70s decade vs free-world geopolitical reversals. The left side is our political effort in VN, which, powered by DC fecklessness & its mirror left-wing street, the peak is the 1975 congressional decision, and the right side is all that you mention, plus the items enumerated in my link “global” above (to a VDH piece).

Now, imagine the same data points as a sequence, each one contingent to some degree upon the previous. We can argue it that way, because it unfolded that way, and was ipso-facto amenable to breakage had USA decided to so break.

But the 1974 and 1976 elections announced that we were not going to do any such breaking, and “At Last!” said the anti-enlightenment forces of reaction (everywhere and including the USA), the free world is now protected by an exhausted, enervating, isolationist, confidence-wrecking, inflation-making, military-defunding, intelligence-spurning, dictator-appeasing Jimmy Carter and his posturing peacenik Congress!

Fine, says USSR, time for that Persian Gulf/Central America/Western Europe move (Afghan invasion, Yom Kippur War, PLO/Arafat ascension, demoralization of Europe under SS-20s & Pope assassination, dirty wars across the American isthmus).

Fine, says Koumeini, time for that coup, USA embassy humiliation, the Hezbollah, and religious-oil war.

Fine, says Pol Pot and other SE Asian products of an ascendant (compared to Watergate/Carter/Disco USA) ideology, time to purge (murder) all “excess people”. That is, all who have been thwarting Utopia, millions, a third of the population, one of every three.

And on and on and on, as we watch, and hear our leader suggesting that “malaise” is our problem.

The Jihad, along in there, reached critical mass and tipped into a sense of real possibilty, main chance, and flowed into the plans and then the executions of global operations (AKA “war”).

Those global operations are what we are fighting today, of course, and have been since the late 70s, though as a population we ignored it until 911 refused our ignoring.

It’s really pretty simple stuff, cognitively, if you’re after the historical truth/facts/reality rather than just advancing your politics.

But now imagine Ronald Reagan being elected in 1976, rather than 1980, and tell me that we are silly to fear the future portended by our Nov 07 realignment.

Jan 30, 2007 - 12:44 pm 31. D Anghelone:

Markus: “I didn’t know that Luther was a Vietnam Vet. Not sure when he was over there, but regardless of whether it was under Johnson or Nixon, I’d like to ask why he isn’t more angry at the people who put him and his brothers in harms way for a cause that had nothing to do with vital U.S. security interests, and kept him there AFTER they knew this to be the case.”

I am also a Vietnam vet and am also not angry with JFK for his war.

Jan 30, 2007 - 12:52 pm 32. Rhod:

If I understand correctly, the events and processes Buddy describes came about because the threat of violence from the US was diminished by the idiot compromising, pacifist entities in charge during the 70’s. Strength and determination results in less violence. True.

Mr. Anghelone, this isn’t the place to argue the VN War, but I never thought of it was JFK’s war. It was America’s war. Westmoreland and MacNamara simply failed.

Jan 30, 2007 - 1:02 pm 33. Buddy Larsen:

I think if it were to be narrowed down to one thing, it was the sanctuary policy. Whoever in DC decided that, had a part.

Jan 30, 2007 - 1:15 pm 34. Buddy Larsen:

I don’t mean to whip it too much, but markus’s “nothing to do with vital security interests” must mean that that we have no vital security interests. And i suppose that is pretty much the position of the American left in general. “Security” means, protecting something they think is bad, and they do not want it to be protected.

Jan 30, 2007 - 1:24 pm 35. markus:

Buddy – Perhaps I’m wrong. Kindly refresh my memory about any incident in which a Vietnamese communist group, or Vietnamese communist government, attacked or made plans to attack sovereign United States territory, or gave aid and comfort to individuals or groups that had plans to attack sovereign U.S. territory.

Jan 30, 2007 - 3:01 pm 36. Rhod:

Markus:

Containment. George F. Kennan. Whatever he said later about his intentions. It wasn’t perfect. But Luther, D. Angelhone and I, and many thousands of others went abroad for it.
Having asked the question, you then must have an opinion about the vets. What’s your moral judgement on Luther, D, and me? Fools? Killers? Pawns? The dregs? What? We supported the mission.

Jan 30, 2007 - 3:12 pm 37. Buddy Larsen:

You don’t think that our handing SVN over to Ho Chi Minh had any effect on the confidence of fellow exile-in-Paris Ayatollah Khomeini?

And that question is simply to jar you to the numbing realization that our enemies watch us like hawks, and never–well hardly ever (ObL & Saddam Hussein certainly miscalculated)–move against our interests unless the odds are good that we will not retaliate in any serious way.

Jan 30, 2007 - 3:15 pm 38. Rhod:

Markus, are you a pacifist?

Jan 30, 2007 - 3:18 pm 39. Buddy Larsen:

You didn’t ask me, Rhod, but I think that no greater imbalance exists in American life than the imbalance that exists between what you vets have done for our country, vs the weight that your first-hand knowledge of what’s really happening, is given by the meme-controlling elites.

Jan 30, 2007 - 3:24 pm 40. D Anghelone:

Mr. Anghelone, this isn’t the place to argue the VN War…

I think your admonition to be several posts late.

It was America’s war. Westmoreland and MacNamara simply failed.

Perhaps Eisenhower’s preconditions should have been preserved:

- Approximately equal number of troops from at least the US, the UK and Australia.

- French derrieres out of Indochina.

- Declaration of war by the US Congress.

Jan 30, 2007 - 3:51 pm 41. markus:

Rhod — “Markus, are you a pacifist?”

I support defensive wars. Such as when the Finns fought the Russians in 1939. Or when the Israelis fought the Arabs in 1967 and 1973.

I probably support other wars on a case-by-case basis. But many of the ones that occured, which seemed inevitable as they are happened, and afterwards, could have been avoided if statesmen on both sides behaved more responsibly, with a greater regard for human life, before and during the conflict.

“What’s your moral judgement on Luther, D, and me? Fools? Killers? Pawns? The dregs? What? We supported the mission.”

Unselfish, brave and patriotic people, able and willing to make the greatest of sacrifices to carry out a mission that their nation’s leaders told them — incorrectly — was necessary to preserve our freedoms.

Jan 30, 2007 - 5:15 pm 42. Buddy Larsen:

Oh, please, markus. We were involved in a steel-cage death match with USSR–by USSR’s choice, not ours–and SE Asia was to be weaponized against us. The war if “lost” gave what we now call the Asian Tigers the time they needed to develop sufficiently to where they could withstand communist encroachment and remain within the free world.

The way your words phrase it, only the broken neck kills you, not the sentencing to be hanged, nor the building of the gallows, nor the noose placed around your neck, nor the trap door sprung, nor the drop to the end of the rope.

Jan 30, 2007 - 5:39 pm 43. Luther McLeod:

Well, work sure interferes with this here internet thingy. I wrote this earlier and could modify based on further conversation here. But I will post as is.

Markus

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears from your latest that your perspective is now one of a patriotic, nationalistic and isolationist view of how America should use, or not, its power and influence in the world. I’m glad too hear that you are patriotic, some of your writing’s on this board had left me unsure on that point. I can’t quite see your nationalistic perspective, though your isolationism is evident.

I agree that America serves as a bright beacon for hope in much of the world. I too, wish to see that continue, but I would add that we have been more than a beacon, we have been a force too be reckoned with for those desirous of seeing that beacon dim into insignificance.

I will admit to not particularly caring about what you think when you make statements such as this “I want to live in a republic, not an empire.” It is difficult for me too take someone seriously when they believe that this country is striving for empire, though I suppose you are directing that comment to President Bush. I find that a not serious and ultimately non-constructive approach when debating the way forward for this country.

Your quote from Bacevich, I think, shows a rather narrow approach to our problems in the ME. It also sounds a bit defeatist. America becoming independent of ME oil might make us feel better but would really do little in starving the ME of funds. Someone will always buy their oil. But I suppose your isolationist tendency is attracted to the “using American soldiers to defend America…” line.

Lastly, I believe the only folks in your “imperial” Washington who are afraid of “ordinary Americans”, are career politicians and civil servants, perhaps most especially those in the State Department.

Prior to, and when we launched our attack on Afghanistan, I was apprehensive as to the success of same. But, honestly, it was from a purely tactical viewpoint. A viewpoint ignorant of how good our military had become.

I had the same concerns in respect to Iraq but with more certainty as to final victory. And indeed that victory was quick and relatively painless for our military.

And, then…well, I’ve never suffered from PTSD, as far as I know anyway, but within a month of our defeat of Saddam I could see the flickerings…it was deja vu all over again, I could see the democrat’s, the press and the leftist’s lining up again to drag this country down. It was then that my apprehension changed to anxiety and then over the last four years too certitude. My post’s above, I believe, fills you in on my thoughts on those who would have us lose another war.

As to your last question, I can only speak for myself. If the generous, kind and freedom yearning people that I met in SVN were living in freedom today, I would consider my life well sacrificed.

Addendum:

Markus

Following Rhod’s lead, Vietnam Vet, circa 66/67/68, III MAF Adjutant’s Office on voluntary first tour, after returning to the US, volunteered for advanced infantry training and a second tour as served with Mike 3/9 USMC.

I have no anger at all for those who who placed me in harm’s way. Well…maybe a little for that dipshit 2nd Lt. I first served under…maybe a little for the assholes who made me take the same hill three times…

Lot’s of mistakes in that war, as in any war. I think my last para above tells you which side of Rhod’s 75% I would be on.

I’m just running down the line here;

Rhod – “It was America’s war. Westmoreland and MacNamara simply failed.” Well said.

BL – “we have no vital security interests.” That is until they are walking up his driveway. And “”Security” means, protecting something they think is bad, and they do not want it to be protected.” Nail meet hammer.

Marcus you have been reading here up-wards of two years, your Memorial Day post anniversary will be here shortly. You haven’t learned a thing.

Buddy lays it out so clearly and well, if you can’t hear that, then you can’t hear anything.

Jan 30, 2007 - 5:47 pm 44. Luther McLeod:

Well I was done, after posting my last, until this:

Summation of Markus’s last:

When they are walking up my driveway, I’ll get serious.

From Buddy:

“The way your words phrase it, only the broken neck kills you, not the sentencing to be hanged, nor the building of the gallows, nor the noose placed around your neck, nor the trap door sprung, nor the drop to the end of the rope.”

Excellent summation of Markus’s viewpoint.

Jan 30, 2007 - 5:54 pm 45. Rhod:

In other words, a credulous, but nevertheless admirable mob. Thank you, Markus.

It would follow, then, that those of us who still believe that what we did was necessary (at some level), persist in our delusions, while you comprehend the truth but forgive us our credulity because of our valor and sacrifice.

I asked you that question about vets because it’s impossible to claim, as you do, the moral high ground in your Buchananism without diminishing those who disagree with it. You have to be honest, Markus. If what you say is true, all of us war veterans are guilty, in some way, and the least of our offenses is stupidity, and the worst, barbarism and crimes without justification or end.

This, I suspect, is why you asked Luther why he wasn’t angry, because by your logic, he’s either angry or a fool, or someone who has BEEN fooled. It leaves your understanding in place without actually disparaging those who served by introducing the necessity of righteous anger for the victim. The con went down, and the mark needs to recognize it and hate the charlatan. You said it without saying it.

(I might agree with you about Vietnam, but the war and the era was so complex that anything you say about it is true.)

Nevertheless, in your clockwork arguments you fail to deal with Buddy’s point about threats accumulating toward the point where your unconvincing martial attitude will be put to the test. A failure of one defense, or a perceived unwillingness to defend the line, leads to attacks on another closer to home.

So far, I haven’t been able to work my way through the specious home-defense case you’ve tossed my way. It isn’t militarily sound, because strategic depth is always a consideration, which is to say, a defensible buffer between you and your enemies. This isn’t a difficult idea, and if you’re ready to defend Chicago, I’m more ready to defend Najaf.

And thank you Buddy. I think, some times, vets make too much of their service, and armor themselves with it. But we present a problem for people who believe as Markus does, and I know it. I like the subject. We’re the jokers in the deck, and we can’t be everything you say we are, Markus, while flattering us with banalities of sacrifice and valor. There’s a note of condescension, too, but I’m not sure you intended it.

The only certainty for me is that the enormity of what we faced in international communism was visible to me in the Viet Cong, and they, by comparison, were mild compared to what we face from radical Islam. There is no one here, including you, Markus, who would not pick up arms once you’ve looked it in the eye. My sons have, and it’s cold, haunting, monstrous. It frightens me.

Jan 30, 2007 - 5:59 pm 46. Rhod:

Mr. Angelhorne:

I wasn’t admonishing you in my prefatory sentence about arguing the war. I was saying that I didn’t intend to bring the tired subject up in what followed. It wasn’t directed at you.

I also don’t know, for sure, what you mean in your next sentences, unless it was preconditions for action in Indochina. If that, then nukes were even considered long before JFK.

The malignity of French colonialism after WWII set the process in motion.

Westmoreland’s S & D was a slaughterhouse for combatants and civilians alike, and MacNamara claims he knew the thing was lost as early as 1967. The Marines didn’t, and even at the end, finally Abrams was employing the Marine’s pacification strategy, and it seemed to be succeeding.

That’s all I meant.

Jan 30, 2007 - 6:16 pm 47. Luther McLeod:

Well damn Rhod. You expose my inarticulatenesses, as well as my inability to focus on the schism that markus truly presents. Fight for freedom, or die by dialog. Well done.

Jan 30, 2007 - 6:20 pm 48. Rhod:

Luther, you set the standard. Marines always do. Semper Fi from a member of one of those other branches.

Jan 30, 2007 - 6:26 pm 49. Buddy Larsen:

Luther, inarticulate, i think not. Clear as a bell and honest, too, rather.

Rhod, you vets are the jokers in the deck alright. That’s why you’re being infantilized into people who get lied to and never (unlike those who’ve never looked the enemy in the eye yet inexplicably are experts on him) catch on to your own dupehood.

That’s the elephant in the living room, alright.

Through these long years of OIF debate, the people I have really, really listened to are the people who have an experienced understanding of this enemy. Your words “cold, haunting, monstrous”, coming from a man with family in the line, should stand the hair up on the back of every neck in the west.

To hell with whoever is president, or which freaking political party is up or down. This ain’t no disco. We could lose. We have to buck up somehow.

Jan 30, 2007 - 6:54 pm 50. Luther McLeod:

No offense intended, Rhod. But bullshit. Yes, I admit to my bias on inter-service rivalry. But we are all a team. We all rely on each other. Blood is blood. But, honestly, it just breaks my heart that this country is so divided. What will it take?

Jan 30, 2007 - 7:01 pm 51. Buddy Larsen:

What will it take? Well, for starters, people who have no idea what they’re talking about could STFU and let the military do its job. They signed up to defend the country and will do it if let. Just calm down and go on about our biz, and settle in for a long-haul limited-war until the other side sees we won’t quit.

It’s been said a jillion times, but wars end when one side quits, and why should this enemy quit so long as we sound as though we’re ready too ourselves?

I can’t for the life of me comprehend how this can be such a difficult point to understand.

Jan 30, 2007 - 7:24 pm 52. Luther McLeod:

Well I should really link good ol’ Mike 3/9.

I don’t either Buddy. Its damn depressing.

Jan 30, 2007 - 7:31 pm 53. markus:

I’m really enjoying this exchange, and I am learning a lot.

I think that we are strong enough as a people and a nation to engage in forceful disagreements amongst ourselves about the most pressing political questions of the day, unlike those who live in dictatorships. We can even discuss what to do about undeclared wars that our President has started against nations that did not directly attack us. Even if the end result is that we pull out more quickly than some of us must like. Isn’t that, after all, one of the main tenets of the Bush doctrine: Democracies are less likely to engage in warfare than dictatorships? Well, guess what, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Luther, I’m curious, just what is your take on your fellow veterans who disagree with you? A former boss of mine is a Marine from Gulf War I, and now a union organizer. He was against invading Iraq, and he’s a strong advocate of withdrawal from Iraq. Are he, too, worthy only of political reeducation, ridicule or contempt?

Jan 30, 2007 - 7:41 pm 54. Buddy Larsen:

Nice site, “Mac” (heh heh)

Jan 30, 2007 - 7:42 pm 55. Buddy Larsen:

don’t know the guy, markus, but will note that union people are often isolationist because they want to recapture the pre-globalized economy, when they didn’t have to compete with foreign lower-cost producers.

Will not note the economic benefits to the little guy of the resulting low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, and solid-growth, as that argument is the fabled endless tit for tat.

Will note that it would suit the UAW just fine if our only choice was between a $75K Pinto and an $80K Chevette, and the left in general if WalMart didn’t exist to save the average customer several thousand bucks a year on food & supplies.

Jan 30, 2007 - 8:02 pm 56. Luther McLeod:

Actually there was “Little Mac” a Basque Irishman, me, and “Big Mac” of indiscernible genealogy but undeniable hugeness. And then, there was that night in Tijuana…

Hell Markus, McGovern was a veteran as well, I voted for him, to my eternal shame, and he would have gutted this country to hell. I live in the USA, everyone is entitled to his opinion…some of which are better, or worse, than others.

Jan 30, 2007 - 8:10 pm 57. Buddy Larsen:

all three in your squad?

Jan 30, 2007 - 8:31 pm 58. Rhod:

Great post, Markus. Reminds me of Laing’s double bind. A little bit of this, a little bit of that, a little permanent tension introduced, a little obsequiousness hiding a lot of scorn and a determination to have your way. You’re really, really good.

Let’s continue. Tell me what you know about Containment, and offer at least one solution to the threat of radical Islam in, say, The Phillipines. Forget Iraq for the moment.

Jan 31, 2007 - 3:37 am 59. Luther McLeod:

Yes. Little Mac was the smooth and loquacious one, he could talk you out of your socks while you still had your boots on. Big Mac usually just grunted a lot, and did I mention he was big, but he was my friend you see. I don’t know what I brought to the party, but we were a pretty fearsome threesome.

Smart assessment Rhod. Saw the same but could never have put it into words. I doubt you will see a reply.

Prove me wrong Markus.

Jan 31, 2007 - 4:09 am 60. Rhod:

I have a simple understanding of ideas, Luther, any ideas. They’re composed of imagination, Reason and the will. The distribution is what matters. Markus is mostly the will.

Jan 31, 2007 - 4:55 am 61. Luther McLeod:

Yes Rhod, and Reason has apparently fled our congressional house’s as well. Dark days ahead I’m afraid. Thanks for sticking with the conversation. Must go ready for work.

Jan 31, 2007 - 5:11 am 62. Buddy Larsen:

We can even discuss what to do about undeclared wars that our President has started against nations that did not directly attack us is dishonest, and you know it, markus.

MNF went in with full UN approval, and USA internally had a congressional resolution. The debate pre-OIF was long and full. Rewriting the history of all that brands you as ultimately a Leninist history-eater.

You should ask yourself why anyone who will lie about the past would tell the truth about the future.

Furthermore, “did not directly attack us” is a moronic oversimlification. For starters, it applies to ‘the good war’ –the several nations of North Africa, and Italy, in 1943, and France in 1944, and the Pacific Theater, where we invaded many entities, but never “the country that attacked us”.

OIF was to engage the enemy, one faction of which did the intolerable, that is, 911, which cost too much of everything to be endured repeatedly, if it is within our power to prevent.

A second 911 magnitude attack, with its promise of a third, and more, would finish the sort of world economy that is providing lift to all the world, freeing billions (of the ‘little people’ whom Democrats claim to protect) from privation for the first time in human history.

Sneer if you must, but at some point in the recent past, before politics overwhelmed, even you must’ve known that war goal #1 was ‘no more 911′. Notice, ankle-biting friend, that there has been no more 911.

Jan 31, 2007 - 8:09 am 63. Rhod:

Buddy:

Well put. The claim that Iraq was no threat to the US has the virtue (for the left) of being difficult to disprove. The can deny both the facts and speculation about the facts. It’s also based on the customary static thinking of leftists, which is to project the present into the future, as far as convenient, to uphold some otherwise indefensible point. What were the No Fly Zones and Food for Oil, if not a recognition of Iraqi beligerence and instability?

Jan 31, 2007 - 9:51 am 64. Buddy Larsen:

right–sanctions were failing, a global UN-centered criminal conspiracy had formed around oil-for-food, inspections were failing (even the anti-USA Hans Blix was getting the run-around), the no-fly zones were under attack, the ‘91 treaty was broken, 17 UN compliance demands ignored, ‘enemies-of-the-people’ being slaughtered in medieval numbers and manner, and most of all, the leading Democrats and Republicans both spending a decade decrying the security risk posed Saddam, and calling for regime change.

But now markus & party want to kick all that down the memory hole, hoping to have, by any next election day, gulled a percent or two of ‘undecideds’.

Whatever won’t go down the hole goes into clockwork trivialization, ridicule, conspiracy assertion, and the postured anger that these things would have to produce if they were true.

And there it is, revealed, the target of all that, a percent or two of undecided swing voters, some of whom, under the barrage of the agenda media, will fall for it–or maybe just go along with it in order to gain a little peace and quiet.

It’s ok to lie, if it’s for a higher purpose, they evidently assume–never wondering what higher purpose there can be than the truth.

Jan 31, 2007 - 11:02 am 65. Buddy Larsen:

Or wondering “higher than what ?” can be any ‘higher purpose’ built on lies.

Jan 31, 2007 - 11:14 am 66. Luther McLeod:

Buddy

You say it with clarity (as Prager would say.) As have many on this site over the last ? (I don’t think Roger’s archives go all the way back) how many years. But I have yet too see a single leftist acknowledge the possibility that we all may be right about the dangers we face. I have seen very few that will acknowledge that even a portion of what we all say is right. Talk about closed minded, they are the very thing they accuse others of being. I just don’t get it.

Jan 31, 2007 - 1:05 pm 67. markus:

RHOD, I’m neither Filipino nor an expert on the country. In general, the best way for a tolerant, progressive society to deal with an intolerant, reactionary element within its boundaries is to effect the greatest possiblie separation possible. So, perhaps some type of autonomy plan or independence would be the best plan. Just like it might the Russians best option for dealing with the Chechnyans.

Buddy, Japan attacked America. Germany declared war a couple of days earlier. Thus, we were acting at that point in self-defense. Also, the October 2002 resolution was NOT a declaration of war, and was NOT debated at length. It was vague enough that many Members of Congress were able to claim, quite disingenously, that they were not voting to go to war, merely to force Hussein to agree to allow UN inspectors to return. And the Administration, of course, claimed under their interpretation of Presidential war powers, to be able to go to war no matter what the outcome of the vote was. Shame on Bush and Daschle for both attempting to find political advantage by insisting on a quick debate in October, rather than a thorough one after that year’s elections.

I’m feeling generous tonight — I’ll ponder the possibility that if we had continued to contain Hussein, however imperfectly, that he would have somehow managed to eventually get his hands on WMD’s and passed them along to his sworn enemies, either in Iran or in Al-Qaeda, who in turn would have detonated them in the United States. Though I’m still not sure what strategic advantage Saadam would have gotten from such a move. And Luther, I’ll consider the “possibility that we all may be right about the dangers we face”, though that still leaves open the question of whether or not arrogance, beligerance and an itchy finger is the best way to minimize or effectively deal with those dangers.

You guys, in turn ponder the possibility that your arrogant, beligerant, trigger-happy stance is making war MORE likely, rather than less.

And let’s agree on at least one thing — Randy Newman is a great songwriter, and we should all listen to his new song, “A Few Words in Defense of Our Country”, recently published as an op-ed in the NY Times, when it is released in a few weeks.

Here’s the first verse, and the last two:
“I’d like to say a few words
In defense of our country
Whose people aren’t bad nor are they mean
Now the leaders we have
While they’re the worst that we’ve had, they are are hardly the worst this poor world has seen…
A president once said,
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself
Now it seems like we’e supposed to be afraid
It’ patriotic in fact and color coded
And what are we supposed to be afraid of?
Why, of being afraid
That’ what terror means, doesn’t t?
That’ what it used to mean

The end of an empire is messy at best.
Ad this empire is ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea
We’re adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free.
Goodbye. Goodbye. Goodbye.”

Jan 31, 2007 - 4:03 pm 68. Rhod:

First paragraph. What tripe.

Arrogant, belligerent and trigger happy? Except for the third quality, that describes you. Back you into a corner and you revert to type. A snarling little gremlim.

And you can’t keep a secret, either. I thought we were valiant and self-sacrificing. You’re a phony, Markus. Everyone here has been more honest than you have.

And by the way, read some Rupert Brooke or Robert Graves, you sophomoric dope. If you need someone to speak for you in verse, try to rise above Randy Newman.

Witless poseur. What a joke.

Jan 31, 2007 - 5:35 pm 69. Luther McLeod:

Markus

Well good for you, you proved me wrong. In the spirit of this thread I was going to give you a serious response in rebuttal, but after rereading your post and partially composing a reply, I realized it is really not worth the effort. You don’t get it Marcus, and at this stage in the game, I doubt you ever will. I apologize to Roger for having wasted his bandwidth.

On second thought, this: “arrogance, beligerance and an itchy finger” perfectly illustrates your lack of seriousness.

Jan 31, 2007 - 5:42 pm 70. Luther McLeod:

Funny Rhod, except for my “second thought” we would have posted at the same time. No significance in that at all, just humorous. I just could not leave that particular without comment.

Jan 31, 2007 - 5:51 pm 71. Buddy Larsen:

Here’s the document.

The title alone says all we need to know about those brave patriots of yours:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Take it apart word-by-word. Pay attention to the customary congressional meaning of the word “Resolution”.

The turned-coat is brushed-off as “Bush made me do it”.

Fine. Go ahead, markus. Support those sorts of people. Let ‘em take us to hell–and they will, for sure–it’s a law of nature.

As far as Randy Newman, there are also lyric possibilities in the several hundred thousand innocent civilian dead and maimed, in thousands of terrorist acts over the last quarter-century.

Wonder why he don’t give some o’ them a little sympathy?

Jan 31, 2007 - 6:11 pm 72. Buddy Larsen:

Whoever’s vote was meant, as you claim, to be a ruse to fool Saddam, would’ve made that very critical point clear to Bush, back-channel.

So one did.

Not one.

It must’ve slipped their minds.

So much for concern about the troops.

Jan 31, 2007 - 6:18 pm 73. Buddy Larsen:

“So one did” is a typo, read “No one did”.

Jan 31, 2007 - 6:20 pm 74. Buddy Larsen:

“Oh, jeez, we took Baghdad? Damn, I had meant to revoke my vote. Shucks. That damn Bush!”

Jan 31, 2007 - 6:26 pm 75. Luther McLeod:

Ah Buddy, you f*****g purveyor of sensible thought.

This;

“As far as Randy Newman, there are also lyric possibilities in the several hundred thousand innocent civilian dead and maimed, in thousands of terrorist acts over the last quarter-century.

Wonder why he don’t give some o’ them a little sympathy”

was excellent.

Hell, obvious to all, except for those who compare us to those same brutal bastards, or even more, that the USA will always be worse.

Jan 31, 2007 - 7:44 pm 76. Buddy Larsen:

…obvious to all, except for those who compare us to those same brutal bastards….

That’s so true. The resolution to the confusion, of course, is in the question, “Who can quit?”

We can’t quit, because they won’t quit if we do.

They CAN quit, because we would quit if they did.

Easy question–I’ve been wondering why our lefties won’t ask it, ever since the 60s, when I first heard the unilateral disarmament slogans.

I’m still wondering why they never wonder about what those other guys might do if we stood down and let them. It’s not as though there’s not blood evidence all over history, there to help us think.

Jan 31, 2007 - 8:33 pm 77. Rhod:

Buddy/Luther:

I can’t say for sure about Markus, but one of the neatest philosophical inventions of the New New Left is the near pacifist. The near pacifist claims he’ll defend America and himself from threats he’s evaluated and found to be real. It seems to be an offshoot of agnosticism, but the doubt and “rational” passivity always seems to prevail. I don’t believe any of them.

They’re all around me here in the Northeast. They aren’t the fatalistic melancholics I knew in the ’60’s, the real article, who were willing to accept what genuine pacifism requires: which is to surrender all the things that violence or the threat of violence and force guarantees, such as private property, citizenship, a passport, anything that assures your safety, such as militaries on down to police forces and hired security guards. It’s all there because someone else will defend it for you, and struggle, himself, with the moral issues.

Nothing Markus said is more vile than to call us “trigger happy”. In the gap between trigger sadness and trigger happiness is a whole lot of freedom and ease for Markus and his kind, and he needs to understand which part of his surfeit of freedom and material is due to which end of the emotive scale he attaches to the trigger. Then he can live by his principles instead of just nattering about empires and progressivism and the other preoccupations of the permanent freshman. I doubt he’ll even understand the point. Too much is missing.

Feb 1, 2007 - 4:24 am 78. Rhod:

“anything that assures your safety” should read, “anything that is assured to you by others”.

Feb 1, 2007 - 4:34 am 79. Buddy Larsen:

amen, Rhod. There’s nothing worse, this side of the criminal code, than an ingrate.

Feb 1, 2007 - 7:35 am 80. Luther McLeod:

Rhod

Yes, I think you do a fair characterization.

Well Buddy, unless it’s an arrogant ingrate. But then, I suppose I’ve never met an ingrate who wasn’t.

I’ve never been able to come to terms with the pacifist world view. It seems, at heart, a self fulfilling desire for extinction, fueled by what I have no idea. Guilt at being alive?

Rhod, don’t mean too pry, but curious as to your line of work, not many mentions of Laing anymore.

Feb 1, 2007 - 9:42 am 81. Rhod:

Luther, I never go into professional or military details on the blogs.

But, checkerd background, from day laborer to teacher, to actuarial end of insurance business to manufacturing, now in restoration biz…gilding, woodwork, metalwork, etc.,..able now to overcharge and separate riches from the second and third-homers in CT who come here from NYC. It’s fun. They’re so gullible and so easily flattered.

Feb 1, 2007 - 10:57 am 82. Rhod:

And, Luther, knowing that Markus will be paying for my prescriptions in the next few years, and the laborless manner in which I can induce rich lefties to pay for my conservative causes, is sweet indeed.

Feb 1, 2007 - 11:01 am 83. Buddy Larsen:

I have a feeling, from the way you construct idea to sentence, that your craftwork is, despite your self-deprecation, worth every penny.

Feb 1, 2007 - 11:15 am 84. Luther McLeod:

Thanks Rhod. I just meant in general, not looking for specifics. Your thoughts on definitions of character made me wonder.

So, gilding the Lilly so to speak…that’s great…not often one can receive multiple layers of satisfaction from from one’s labor. Ha, that’s a good one re Marcus and prescriptions.

Feb 1, 2007 - 12:01 pm 85. Rhod:

Somewhere nearby is a hollow log with our adversary in it, watching, watching… but what the hell. He’ll hate this admiring note, but I’m grateful for Buddy and Luther, and Markus too. Markus probably has good intentions. I blame the schools.

(Buddy is the oldest hand on Roger’s Farm, as far as I know, and we’re all lucky to sit down with him now and then).

Feb 1, 2007 - 12:53 pm 86. Luther McLeod:

You can say that again…

Feb 1, 2007 - 1:08 pm 87. Buddy Larsen:

Youse guyz is too kind. Ole markus has been around here for a long time, too. Nobody’s budged him yet–he has his script and by golly he gonna stick to it. I think he knows his arse is showing, but he’s invested, as they say, in his narrative. too bad. Some day, come the revolution, we will have to clap him in irons.

Feb 1, 2007 - 3:25 pm 88. Rhod:

Buddy, any post that includes “arse” and “clap” is too rough for me.

Feb 1, 2007 - 4:13 pm 89. Luther McLeod:

It’s the sense of humor that’s missin’, on the other side, I think. I thank you both for a pleasant time. Anyhoo, looks like we’re about too drop off the bottom of the page.

Feb 1, 2007 - 4:48 pm 90. Buddy Larsen:

Ditto–all–

Feb 1, 2007 - 6:13 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: