Can We Surrender NOW?
As the weekend approaches and Bush's twisted plot to force democracy upon Iraq comes to a head, it's all too easy for progressives like myself to cross our fingers and hope something goes terribly wrong just so he'll look bad. However, we must remember that we still have soldiers over there, brutually murdering innocent children and drinking their blood. As much as I loathe the military, I don't want to see any of our stupid Rambo-wannabes hurt. At least, not until an election year, and then I want to see endless rows of flag draped coffins on HDTV with limited commercial interruptions, followed by a very special edition of West Wing in which a weeping Martin Sheen laments all the young lives lost thanks to Republican warmongers. But Bush is too afraid to let Americans know the truth, so I doubt that's ever going to happen.
Therefore, I stand with Senator Kennedy and his call for a complete and immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. As long as this illegal war dominates the news, the jingoist Jesus freaks in the red states will continue to vote for Republican chickenhawk nazis with no gaydar. America must raise the white flag and flee Iraq with its tails between its legs before any more democrats lose their jobs or their minds. To protect France's lucrative reconstruction efforts, a small "UN stabilizition force" will remain, comprised of unarmed and handcuffed Army Rangers under the command of the newly elected Secretary General, William Jefferson Clinton.
There's no shame in quitting. Let's give Iraq back to the Iraqi people, before Bush's approval numbers have a chance to inch any higher.




Withdrawal from Iraq is not enough! We need to continue our fight against the Imperialist hedgemongers until all American troops are out of North Carolina, Virginia, New York, California, Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Yeaaarrrrrgh, and every other occupied habitat of free- spirited Shire-folk.
Posted by: spd rdr | January 28, 2005 at 08:47 PM
From the link ;
" No American has ever been U.N. secretary-general, but the United States is both host country to the United Nations and the major contributor to its budget."
Never mind Iraq , the US must get out of the U.N. now and then kick the U.N. OUT !
Or...
After a Boutros Boutros and a Kofi , maybe it's time to put LARRY LARRY on strong COFFEE in charge of the U.N.?
Not only would he be the first american in that position but it would be an improvement over those clowns !
Posted by: Friend of USA | January 28, 2005 at 09:02 PM
Friend of U.S.A., my CAT would be a better job as Secretary General than those clowns. She clearly has more common sense. Larry could certainly do a better job, as well, provided he can come out from under his sink long enough....
Posted by: JannyMae | January 28, 2005 at 10:44 PM
Well, Larry will certainly be the poster child for progressivist policies.
Because of his clinical levels of anxiety and time under the sink with the cleaning supplies he will be strong voice for the displaced Kerry supporters.
Besides, his sink will certainly cut down on the space needed for a bureacracy
and the US can write the rental off.
Posted by: Cricket | January 29, 2005 at 05:53 AM
Wait just a darn minute: "There's no shame in quitting. Let's give Iraq back to the Iraqi people, before Bush's approval numbers have a chance to inch any higher." Larry, have you been stealing your material from DemocraticUnderground again!?
Posted by: JannyMae | January 29, 2005 at 12:33 PM
Your Freudian slip is showing.
Posted by: aelfheld | January 29, 2005 at 07:28 PM
Um, what does "gaydar" mean? Does it have something to do with being "gay"?
Posted by: El-ahrairah | January 29, 2005 at 08:59 PM
Gaydar means Gay Radar. A talent that Metro-sexuals vigorously and continually brag about, Gaydar is one's inate ability to discern whether or not another person is gay. Some have excellent gaydar, some not so great.
I, on the other hand, posess Gonar, or Gay Sonar. I can only tell if someone is gay when I'm swimming.
Posted by: Liberal Hippy Douche | January 29, 2005 at 09:53 PM
Clearly the small 70% minority of people who "voted" in these farce elections are collaborators with the Imperialistic aggressors, and as such the heroic and much loved Iraqi freedom fighters are quite justified in retaliating against them.
Halliburton and Kathleen Whoreis no doubt will get the contract to fix the election for the Repugs chosen quisling!
Posted by: Menstrual Rainbow | January 30, 2005 at 10:23 AM
Don't these Iraqis know that by voting they are only supporting the terrorist Bushitler regime? I hope that some of them get the sense into their heads to find a suicide bomber and have him blow them up, giving Dumbya the negative publicity we so desperately crave.
Posted by: Red Loser | January 30, 2005 at 12:13 PM
Obviously those 8 million voters were in fact out of work extras from holywood that Bush / Halliburton hired to influence the election results.
Posted by: beaverette | January 30, 2005 at 04:31 PM
Anyone that believes those were really Iraqis voting today has WAY too much imagination!!!
Posted by: beaverette | January 30, 2005 at 04:33 PM
Ya'll are serious f***ing morons, and this whole site is retarded. Honestly, look at the things this guy is saying-
"it's all too easy for progressives like myself to cross our fingers and hope something goes terribly wrong just so he'll look bad. However, we must remember that we still have soldiers over there, brutually murdering innocent children and drinking their blood. As much as I loathe the military, I don't want to see any of our stupid Rambo-wannabes hurt."
what a f***ing hippie. I mean we all know war is bad, but this prick is insulting the men and women who are giving their lives to protect this country and keep it what it is today (allowing you to post this vile filth on the internet).
You damn communists need to get the hell out of here, noone is making you stay.
Posted by: thewhitedevil | January 30, 2005 at 08:06 PM
Oh, golly gee, another one who doesn't get it...how amusing!!!
Posted by: JannyMae | January 30, 2005 at 08:32 PM
JannyMae -- I'm not sure what you mean saying thewhitedevil "doesn't get it". He recognizes that this website is the greatest clearinghouse of progressive political thought in the universe, and that makes us his greatest enemy. Although there are those who may come here because Reich Wing News called it "satire", or wonder why all of us progressives have Kool-aid drinking personal websites, our real enemies know that this is only cover to keep The Man from getting us down. As a retired military officer, I not only join Larry's call for the U.S. to get out of Iraq, but also to pull all American warmongers out of Korea so the beautific peninsula can be reunited under the enlightened Army-first Juche policies of Kim Jong Il. Regarding Iraq, we know that any election in which there is less than 100% turnout, with 100% of the vote for one candidate, cannot be a real election, so rule of that country must pass to the last person who achieved these results. We all know who that was...
Posted by: Bubblehead | January 30, 2005 at 09:00 PM
Look for the "Man" to show up on this site and chime in with something that Larry has overlooked. Bush did nothing to stop Pol Pot. For that matter, he did nothing to stop Kim Il Jung from gaining nuclear weapons. After President Clinton cleverly negotiated with North Korea and China, look what a mess Bush has created.
Posted by: Rick© | January 31, 2005 at 03:29 AM
george.w.bush is a lost man.he should go back to the days when he was a cowboy.we all know how he was best friends with the terrorists of 9/11 and how even 2 months after he hadnt sent troops in..head start or what.iraq was an excuse for him to bomb somewhere else other then his best friends hide out.he should had his resignition in now.before he ends up like kennedy.hes got no excuse for what hes doing hes no better than saddam hussein .mass murderer but cos hes a "president" he gets away with it.theres no such thing as justice and he soo evidently proves this.i just hope he does pull the forces out of iraq before its too late.
Posted by: bob | January 31, 2005 at 06:10 AM
Rick -- You're right as usual. Not only did Bush not stop Pol Pot, but I believe he actually aided him in his plans. Look at this irrefutable logic chain: 1) Bush's evil dad ruled the CIA in the '70s; 2) The CIA controls everything bad that happens in the world; 3) Pol Pot committed his killings in the '70s. I think the Cambodian killing fields were just a "dry-run" for what Bush plans to do to Americans, and when you consider that most progressives live in cities, you can expect us to be marched out to... I give up, Larry, I can't do it. As hard as I try, I just can't do this better than the bob's of the world.
Posted by: Bubblehead | January 31, 2005 at 06:35 AM
Bob, well said.
This election has to be evaluated in light of the previous election, in which turnout was 100% and one candidate [removes hat, places over heart] received a convincing mandate of 100%. I don't care what the turnout was on Sunday, or who got what percentage. If both numbers were not 100%, this "election" was a fraud and a dismal failure. Mission NOTHING ACCOMPLISHED!
Posted by: Crouton | January 31, 2005 at 08:19 AM
Has this forum been taken over by freepers? What's with all the attacks on Pol Pot, is it that you just can't stand anti-imperialist socialist revolutionaries? Well news for you- Some of us care about the oppressed. LOSE THE HATE!!! As Noam Chomsky demonstrated at the time, the Killing Fields were a myth spread by the corporate media! REJECT LIES!!!
Posted by: Menstrual Rainbow | January 31, 2005 at 08:34 AM
As Noam Chomsky deconstructed the media dissemblage of disengenous post war information, at the same time he constructed a pristine fabrication regarding the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in the Balkans. The perpetration of this was to dissuade focus and dialogue taking place regarding the President's then
affaire de corps with one Ms. Lewdisnky. By emphasizing the separation from this life of Kosovars who were allegedly terminating ethnic Albanians, he helped ease the decision of the Clinton administration to redirect the media to them and not him.
This had the effect of elevating economic expectations as troops were deployed to the region, thus causing an inflated response to a relatively minor problem that has stood the test of time in showing the rush to war led to the quagmire
in the Balkans.
IOW, for those of you who don't Chomsky, he freakin' lied.
NEXT!
Posted by: Cricket | January 31, 2005 at 08:51 AM
Pol Pot for President!
Posted by: Red Loser | January 31, 2005 at 08:52 AM
Anyone with the name "Pot" can't be all that bad (bu-DUMP!).
But seriously, the agrarian revolution in Cambodia was a well-intentioned endeavor. Even if you assume for the sake of argument that 1/3rd of the country was slaughtered, that was only because AmeriKKKa was meddling in the People's Revolution and mucking things up, so Pol Pot had no choice but to fight the Yankee imperialists, but some of his own people got hurt in the process. No sensible person would blame Pol Pot for that (didn't Senator McGovern dedicate his autobiography to the Khmer Rouge, back in the day?).
Posted by: Crouton | January 31, 2005 at 09:46 AM
We need to be more like the French. They would have surrendered long ago.
Posted by: Vishnu Troll Daddy Earth Goddess | January 31, 2005 at 09:52 AM
Now they have surrendered to us. Old Europe is beginning to discover that We Were Right and that Chomsky was a Pot head.
Posted by: Cricket | January 31, 2005 at 10:12 AM