Why Bush is Stalling: Add Your Speculation

Yeah, I know it's ridiculous that the President is waiting until the new year to announce his spiffed-up victory-seeking Iraq policy. Just like it was ridiculous that the Baker commission had to wait until after the elections to release their report.

But I wonder: Is Bush just clueless about what to do next, or is this an intentional stall? Maybe the Prez is delaying until January because he thinks something will be different then.

But what? Personally, I figure he's got a plan in the works to toss Maliki and hunt down al-Sadr. By January he thinks he'll be rolling out a new Iraqi government, not just a new US policy. But maybe it's something else. Add your speculations.

•  He asked for an exit strategy

  and is expecting Santa to deliver it soon.

  by zenbowl on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 07:58:53 AM PDT

  •  He's looking...

    under his desk for more troops

    by kharma on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:05:50 AM PDT

  •  "C'mon, Santa!"

    "I've been a real good boy this year! No drinking or snorting anything, really. Ask Mrs. Claus. --- Love, George.

    PS: I'm also wishing for some WMDs in Iraq."

    by droogie6655321 on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:22:19 AM PDT

•  Iraqi Coup

  Something tells me that the democratically elected government of Iraq is going to be toppled very soon.  Then what will Bush be saying about free elections and "crap" over in Iraq.

  Or maybe he just wants to wait until after Santa Claus comes.

  by egarratt on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:00:33 AM PDT

•  I think he's just stalling

  This is a PR President.  He can't actually DO anything, so he waits for something to 'come up', like that character in the Dickens novel.  No doubt there are various plans in the works, but they aren't his plans.  The guy is intellectually defective.  He literally can't think, so it's hard to ascribe plans to him.  He's just stalling for a better press cycle. They will wheel something out on January 3 to take away the headlines from Nancy Pelosi's assumption of the Speakership.  I think that's the start and end of this.

  by Knut Wicksell on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:02:34 AM PDT

  •  You get a 4 from me

    Just for the phrase, "stalling for a better press cycle." There is no way I could have said it better myself.

    DEAD

    ON

    TARGET

    by Blue Boy Red State on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:15:30 AM PDT

  •  He's stalling til he can kill off a Dem Senator

    If Tim Johnson isn't gone by Jan. 3, then someone else will be.

    He needs to control the Senate, at least.

    by armadill on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:30:27 AM PDT

  •  If that's the case...

    it's going to backfire big time. No better press cycle will arise between now and sometime in 2007.

    by blueyedace2 on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:50:14 AM PDT

  •  Remember "Adjusting to Win"?

    Now he's "Adjusting to Lower Expectations."  As Rummy helpfully pointed out in his last memo, if the Administration can lower expectations sufficiently, then we can't lose.

    by litigatormom on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:00:25 AM PDT

    •  My guess too. Time for an exam with no prep work.

      The WH is figuring out the propaganda approach to change perceptions.  Like the recent "The President never said 'Stay the course.'"  

      Only this effort will need to be more significant and require better coordination of everyone playing the same melody on the Wurlitzer.

      In a comment last night on this topic, I speculated that Bush's approach to his presidency is similar to his apparent approach to academics--do the least possible to get by.  In the current situation, Bush has finally become exposed and can no longer use the Republican Congress to help change the answer sheet so that his answers are always correct.  

      I wouldn't be surprised if this is the most panicked moment of his presidency and perhaps his life. Perhaps he's even having the classic nightmare of sitting down to a final exam without having done any studying or preparation...except this is no dream for him, it's a reality.

      by sawgrass727 on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:13:45 AM PDT

•  um

  easy, he's stupid.

  by Love and Death on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:04:19 AM PDT

•  well, I just listened to the

  weekly news roundup on the Diane Rehm Show on NPR.  You can click the link to see the guest list.

  This question came up.  Some of the possibilties discussed were that he is in denial about how far gone Iraq is- how remote or impossible "victory" is, and/or  that he absolutely will not go along with any plan that casts him as a war loser president.  Another was that the "surge" scenario, where we put more troops in Baghdad (I'm totally spacing out how to spell that) to secure it so we can transition to training Iraqi security forces, etc., buys him cover to basically endorse the ISG report later and begin to withdraw.

  by station wagon on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:06:31 AM PDT

  •  Interesting

    but he won't withdraw and has no intention or plans to do so. I agree with the first scenario that you describe. He is in complete denial. His goal is to carry the ball a little further down the field, then do a hand-off to whoever gets sworn in in Jan 2009.

    His recent speech in Vietnam shows that he believes victory could be right around the corner, if only he stays the course. If victory doesn't occur till after he's out of office, he's fine with that because he feels that will still vindicate his policy. If a future president decides to withdraw, Bush thinks that president alone will be blamed for the failure in Iraq.

    He has no intention of endorsing the ISG report if that means withdrawal. He has already claimed that the ISG report endorses him. It doesn't matter what they call it, Bush's policy is still 'stay the course'.

    by Warren Terrer on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:15:50 AM PDT

  •  That was an excellent panel on DR show

    The gyst of the denial discussion was that all Bush is thinking about now is his legacy and how he is convinced he will be vindicated and celebrated like Truman. He won't listen to silly withdrawal talk because it stinks up his legacy plans. One panelist (maybe Andrew Sullivan) noted that it would be pretty awful if soldiers are dying just to prop Bush's legacy.

    by frankzappatista on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:39:30 AM PDT

    •  thank you for boiling it down so well! n/t

      by station wagon on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:07:40 PM PDT

      •  I listen best when I'm stuck

        in morning rush hour traffic ;)

        by frankzappatista on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:28:07 PM PDT

        •  I was attending to my sweet daughter who

          has been fighting a fever and inflammation of the the cartilage around her breastbone- viruses can be nasty!  So thank you.

          The Friday news roundup with Diane Rehm and guests is my favorite radio.  

          by station wagon on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 03:55:06 PM PDT

•  Well, the latest on the grapevine

  is that the administration is "quietly" (I use that word with reservations, because this administration doesn't know how to do anything quietly) trying to oust Malaki while making use of two factions in the parliament. RedState is creaming its collective pants over the prospect that Bush is going to be triumphant, showing the world that he's not really a dingbat, this was all just part of a cunning plan to bring democracy to Iraq. They haven't yet figured out that if Malaki is forced out, it will undoubtedly mean the ascension of some Sunni faction, which would basically mean that we'll have spent a trillion dollars and decimated our military so that we could replace one Sunni madman with a collection of Sunni madmen.

  by steve davis on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:07:12 AM PDT

  •  That makes sense.

    The Saudis probably ordered the coup when Cheney was over there.  But it's also likely there's something else at the root of it--something related to oil and money.

    by Boston Boomer on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:20:49 AM PDT

    •  "oil and money"

      There you crazy liberals go again.

      by egarratt on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:38:21 AM PDT

    •  Oil and money it is.

      Take a look at this article at atimes. US staying the course for Big Oil in Iraq

      This endeavor is greatly complicated by the disagreements of the Iraqis over how to divvy up the loot in their new oil law.  International Tribune has the details: Iraqi oil law stalled by dispute over division of powers

      The article mentions that they are aiming to settle the law by end of Dec. or next January.  Given that Bush is super concerned about security for the oil companies, that's a nice coincidence, no?

      by Jules Beaujolais on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:20:44 AM PDT

  •  Er...

    If Maliki is ousted, isn't that repudiating the democratic process?

    by Nina Katarina on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:29:35 AM PDT

    •  Well, there you go again

      Trying to apply logic to what goes on in the minds of Shrub and his neocon cabal.

      by Blue Boy Red State on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:33:23 AM PDT

    •  Since Iraq has a parliamentary system

      the coup will be described as a "parliamentary realignment" after a "no confidence vote."

      Listen, it could also happen to Tony Blair any day now.

      by litigatormom on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:01:58 AM PDT

•  "Merry Christmas! We need to kill

  twenty thousand more of your children" is a hard sell.

  by Crashing Vor on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:08:59 AM PDT

  •  Pulease, why should they waste their beautiful

    Christmas on something like body bags and deaths?

    by Fury on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:17:48 AM PDT

•  I think it's part of an all-out effort...

  ...at a two-year-long stall.

  His goal is to shift the blame.  But Jesus, in a way I guess we ought to be thankful Herr Bush can even grasp the concept "goal."

  by dov12348 on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:10:05 AM PDT

•  Is he waiting for another 9/11?

  I don't want to re-argue whether or not 9/11 was or wasn't set up. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

  Either way, can't you just imagine someone in Bush's inner circle saying something like this:  "If only there was another 9/11, everyone would support the war again."

  by Jimdotz on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:11:37 AM PDT

  •  Actually another 9/11 type attack from Al Qaeda

    would kinda highlight the fact that junior failed to take care of business after the first one.  It would also undercut the "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" bullshit.  I don't see it generating any support for fighting Iraqis.

    by MajorFlaw on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:24:50 AM PDT

    •  You may be right about affecting support for Iraq

      but Bush's people would certainly believe that it would boost his approval ratings, and that would give him a fresh suppply of his beloved "political capital" to spend.

      by Jimdotz on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:30:10 AM PDT

      •  I really doubt it

        He's played that card and it didn't work out for him the way he expected. He just lost congress. He's approaching Nixonian levels of unpopularity.

        Only the kool-aid snorters at redstate et al. would claim that another 9/11 would be a reason to rally around Bush once again, and this time even they wouldn't really believe it.

        by Warren Terrer on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:30:22 AM PDT

•  Because no matter

  what he does, it'll look like he's either following Team Daddy or McCain. That cannot happen because he's the Decider. So he just won't decide at all until his gawdawful term is over. Too bad the Green Zone probably won't last that long.

  by motherlowman on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:12:27 AM PDT

•  He's stalling because he doesn't have new answers

  He's an IDIOT!!!!

  by drmah on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:14:39 AM PDT

•  He hopes we will have forgotten about it by then

  ...because he will have.

  btw, what happened to the old admonition that "You don't reinforce failure"?

  by Charles Pooter on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:15:05 AM PDT

•  He's fighting the Pentagon

  Yesterday's WaPo was on top of this.

  The nation's top uniformed leaders are recommending that the United States change its main military mission in Iraq from combating insurgents to supporting Iraqi troops and hunting terrorists, said sources familiar with the White House's ongoing Iraq policy review.

  From the story: Joint Chiefs Advise Change In War Strategy

  So the top military brass are leaning toward the ISG report, which Bush has pondered, considered, weighed, and tossed in the trash. Thus, he's buying himself a few weeks to twist some arms and get everybody on board the "Go Big" plan.

  by The Raven on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:15:17 AM PDT

  •  Taking bets

    on what date Bush fires every general.

    by givemhellHarryR on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:27:43 AM PDT

•  '08 face saving

  They need to construct a big lie to make the decision to go into Iraq not look like the worst mistake in generations.

  Rove knows that if they admit they've been wrong all along at this point in time, they will kill the chances of any Repug candidate looking to succeed Dubya.

  by Dion on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:17:03 AM PDT

•  A Wet Blanket

  The WH wants to swamp coverage of the first steps of a new Dem congress ala Rumfeld announcement the day after the election.
   Pelosi will be a footnote in the news as the cameras focus on W striding up to the mic for an overly dramatic announcement that will amount to nothing in its execution, but will chew up coverage as the new legislative cycle starts.

  by simaramis on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:17:16 AM PDT

  •  A 100 hour long

    dump.

    by motherlowman on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:19:21 AM PDT

•  The Oil Laws

  He's waiting for the Iraqi Parliament to pass their "Oil Legislation" which doles out the oil leases.  It was supposed to be passed just before the original December 18 Bush speech, but negotiations have stalled.  And so has Bush.

  Plus, it's the holidays y'all!

  by reef the dog on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:22:11 AM PDT

•  Well, four weird things have happened:

  • First, the Iraqi VP comes to visit early.
  • Then the Saudis freak out and say they'll support the Sunni insurgents.
  • Then the Saudi ambassador resigns and takes off in the dead of night to spend more time with his family.
  • And now, most ominously, 16 Saudis are released from Gitmo to return to Saudi Arabi after years of torture.

  What's Bush's plan? My guess is pretty worthless, but in a bar I'd bet you a beer that he's going to allow the overthrow of the Iraqi government by Sunnis to avoid a Syria-Iraq-Iran Shiite axis, and that a massive buildup of our troops are going to back them up.

  Why wait to tell us this? I have no bloody clue.

   

  by iconoclastic cat on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:22:55 AM PDT

  •  Why wait to tell us this?

    For the same reason he didn't tell us the truth about why we were going into Iraq -- because if he told us what he was going to do, and why, he would have been stopped.

    by litigatormom on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:03:54 AM PDT

  •  Remember: for Bush, "victory" means

    US forces staying in Iraq forever. And how do you guarantee that? Arrange the overthrow of the Maliki government to escalate the Sunni-Shiite conflict and drag in the saudia and iranians.

    Facing public repudiation of the permanent stalemate in the "war" against al-Qaeda and Sunni insurgenst, Cheney and Bush are going to change the story altogether by dissolving that conflict in a larger Middle East War that will spread as far as Lebanon, Palestine, and Somalia.  

    by LanceBoyle on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:32:24 AM PDT

    •  But why wait? nt

      by iconoclastic cat on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:41:12 AM PDT

•  He showing how decisive he can be

  What could be more decisive for the Great Decider than deciding not to decide while the people want him to decide? Huh?

  It'a a real gutsy move. My respect for him grows with every day.

  </snark>

  by Ex Con on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:25:03 AM PDT

•  He wants the new congress in session

  so he can lay the footwork of blame on their doorstep.

  by Hey BB on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:27:21 AM PDT

  •  which is why

    Progressives and the netroots have to continually scream from the rooftops, "This is Bush's war of choice! Bush's occupation! Bush's mistake--HE"S the deciderer." Until it sinks in, and Dems can't be blamed.

    by LightningMan on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:31:51 AM PDT

    •  Why I so heartily approved

      decon's diary today on the simple, three-word frame, "The Bush War."

      by Crashing Vor on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:39:01 AM PDT

  •  BINGO!

    by Zanna on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:51:11 AM PDT

•  I think the "Decider" cannot decide.

  He is between a rock and a hard place.  No matter what he chooses to do, it will appear that he is either taking somebody's advice (Jimmy Baker's) or staying the course while putting more fodder on the front (McCain's) so the only way he can appear to be independent is to REFUSE to make a decision.

  Our military have been so brave in such horrendous circumstances that they deserve a Commander in Chief who can bring himself to confront this terrible problem that he brought to the Iraqis and to our country.  Bush should be forced to visit Iraq and ride in the kinds of vehicles, eat the meals, and wear the body protection armor that our military is experiencing.  I am pretty certain that would bring him to say, "Get me out of here!"  Which is what we all want to hear him say.

  by macmcd on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:30:48 AM PDT

  •  That's about my take too

    Instead of deciding, he's pretending to put some thought into the process.  It's hard work thinking, you know.  Takes him a long, long time.  Remember the stem cell decision?  That was the last time he tried to think.  

    Maybe someday he will wake up and find out that the last 6 years was a bad dream.  I certainly wish the rest of us could.  

    by pdknz on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:15:25 AM PDT

    •  I agree with you. I think he has not been

      required to be responsible for anything in his life and now he does not know how to be responsible and since he is commander in chief, no one else can help him with it.

      by macmcd on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 12:36:34 PM PDT

  •  I wonder how much is due to his personal problems

    Right now, ANY option George Bush chooses will be a blow to his incredibly fragile self-esteem, because any change he makes will effectively be an admission that he was WRONG -- which he just can not bring himself to do.  

    And if he was wrong, that makes other people whose suggestions and advice he follows RIGHT -- so therefore, he is not on top anymore.  He is not THE DECIDER.  For someone who sees the world in absolute terms of who is winning vs. who is losing, who is above vs. who is below, who has had the last word vs. who hasn't -- and who must always be in the winning position -- this is completely unacceptable.

    On top of that, once he admits he was wrong, he will have to move to the next step -- actually taking RESPONSIBILITY as President of the United States.  For someone who wants all the power and none of the responsibility, this is his worst nightmare.  He's already feeling the pressure from all quarters to GROW UP, even from his own side, and I think that's why he looks so anxious and worn down these days.

    And further, if he takes responsibility, he will face another nightmare -- actually having to WORK.  HARD.  A LOT.  For someone who is fundamentally a lazy slacker, this is no fun at all.

    So he stalls for time, like any alcoholic, hoping the problem will go away by itself.  And yet, on some level I'm sure he knows that even stalling for time makes him look bad -- again unacceptable -- so basically, he's screwed.

    I keep getting the image of Robbie the Robot in "Forbidden Planet" when asked to follow an order that puts his two directives in conflict:  Always do what a human commands vs. Do no harm to a human:  His master gives him a ray gun and orders him to shoot a human.  Robbie becomes paralysed and sparks start flying out of his head.

    I see George Bush right now as paralysed with sparks flying out of his head:  "Must ... admit I was wrong in order to ... look good.  But ... CAN'T ... admit I was wrong! ...  Must ... take responsibility ... to ...  continue to ... be DECIDER.  But ... CAN'T ... take responsibility ... That will make me look ... like follower!  Must ... act somehow to ... look like in charge.  But ... that ... would ... involve ... WORK ..."

    by niemann on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:16:49 AM PDT

    •  The true Decider

      Bush may be stalling because he has no idea what to do next, but you can bet Cheney isn't stopping to examine any doubts. He just needs a few months to beat off James Baker's and Bush 41's efforts to rescue the captive Crown Prince, and to lay the foundations for abroader war involving the Saudis and Iranians.

      by LanceBoyle on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:36:01 AM PDT

      •  I think you have brought up the real problem.

        While we may be able to survive the idiot president if Congress can figure a way to work around him, our real problem is Cheney who has been the real decider all along and he is not going to allow our cuntry to survive if he can help it.  He wants to strip EVERYTHING before he gives up his position of power.

        by macmcd on Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 12:41:16 PM PDT

•  Bush is being smashed by between

  his friends, the House of Saud, and his own delusions of how to bring democracy to the Middle East. Democracy in Iraq means the Shia will be in charge. That's the majority. The House of Saud are truly the antithesis of democracy, and they will not accept Shia rule in Iraq. Their kingdom is supported by fundamentalist Sunnis who rely on the monarchy's copius cash infusions to spew their sick, exclusionary dogma. It's a match made in Hell.
  The Saudis are Bush's good friends, so silly dreams of liberation and democracy in Iraq are currently being purged from the White House Fantasy Bubble. Time to get real: that means time to do what the Kingdom wants.

  by pat bunny on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:33:30 AM PDT

•  personally,

  I think he really believes we're winning. Just a few more months, and they'll be building statues of him in Bagdad and he'll go down in history as the most visionary and excellent President ever.

  Moron. Imbecile. Idiotboy.

  by LightningMan on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:34:38 AM PDT

•  Maybe

  since the recent elections proved the American people are traitors because we rejected the republican led Congress, he wants to treat us like his other enemies, Syria, Iran and North Korea by not speaking with us. It is in his nature to snub people who don't agree with him. So now he has nothing to talk to us about.

  by tazz on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:35:10 AM PDT

•  It's the oil...

  Check this out -- www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL14Ak01.html

  by pitsniff on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:39:24 AM PDT

•  No more room in the Quicksand.

  He would rule quickly but the density of his fuckups has cause a Physics anomaly called fuckupsnofitis.

  by Clzwld on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:40:12 AM PDT

•  The "Sick" part of this

  Is that people who have continuously put party ahead of country, aka Rove/Cheney/etc are making these decisions.

  It's not about fixing the problem, it's about 1)making them look good, and 2) covering the Republican's asses.

  It ain't going to work thugs, sorry.

  by egarratt on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:43:51 AM PDT

•  War is hard work

  He obviously needs a vacation.

  Can't you see how hard he's working?

  /snark

  "They're all crazy. They're all crazy except you and me. Sometimes I have me doubts about you." -- Garrett Fort

  by Spathiphyllum on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:49:09 AM PDT

•  Karl told him to wait until 5 pm 12-29

  the absolute, no dispute place to bury a news item.

  by ticket punch on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 08:56:35 AM PDT

•  His magic 8-ball is jammed-up,

  and he's expecting Santa to bring him a new one. At least, that's what Laura is telling him to say.

  by lyvwyr101 on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:17:37 AM PDT

•  He's waiting for another ATTACK

  waiting... waiting... twiddling his thumbs.  Asking:

  C'mon, Dick, when's that next attack coming?  I need some cover on this Iraq-thing.  heh heh.

  by billiammm on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:19:01 AM PDT

•  marketing release

  remember when andrew card said "you don't launch a new product in august"?  that's how these folks think: not in terms of policy or getting things done, but appearances.

  and december's really a pretty lousy time to release a new product.  people are already swamped with the new stuff released in november and are heading into christmas already.  the ISG got it's marketing campaign (and if you look at the last 20 pages of the report it's obvious that's all that is, as well) going just in time before people start tuning out for the holidays.

  so they're just waiting for january to start their PR offensive.  new year, new products, "a new way forward" blah blah blah.

  they really could not care less that a couple hundred more americans will die over there while they wait.

  by zeke L on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 09:23:53 AM PDT

•  He's got to scramble with the Iraq football

  for two more years.

  Then, he can hand off to 44 and argue that 44 lost the game when he pulled out, not the great 43.  

  If he fumbles, throws an incomplete pass, gets tackled, or the play completed any other way, the game is over.

  There's no more time on the clock.  

  by windje on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:10:07 AM PDT

•  God's 'tubes' are clogged - no email yet.

  He's waiting for a decision from the Republican God who set him on this mission. And since I happen to know that God spends every December on the beach in Hawaii, there can obviously be no final decision until after the new year. Just thought all you good people should know this.

  Actually, Bush is looking for a way to repackage the same old crap and the new wrapping paper won't be available until after everyone opens their Christmas presents. Sounds logical to me, but I've been drinking.

  by skrymir on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:21:05 AM PDT

•  the answer is quite simple

  as the dupe and puppet, bush has no control. behind the scene others are making the decisions.

  obviously the troops can't be brought back as in "cut and run", or whatever you want to call it.

  yes, there will be a short term "we did the right thing". very short term.

  and then the question will be asked: for what reason did my fellow soldier, husband, wife, brother, sister, etc die or end up disabled?

  no answer that i, you or anyone else can think of will pacify. and we live in a economic and social era where an ex-soldier can no longer move to northern california or colorado, idaho, montana, new mexico, etc and live inexpensively and away from the anxiety producing barrio, ghetto and big city suburb.

  when those men (and women) return, the war is going to come with them.          

  by blklikeme on Fri Dec 15, 2006 at 10:37:16 AM PDT