The Night We Waved Goodbye to America

[casey73]

This view from across the pond is dead on. I've tried to be nice here in my warning that Obama is not a good for America. Now I'll say what I really believe. If you voted for Obama and are over the age of 35, you are either incredibly gullible, holding on to pipe dreams of old hippies, or you culpable for what is sure to be a regrettable period in American history. I can cut some slack for young people caught up by a CGI rendition of JFK in black. But adults should know better. Siyonara

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ope-Earth.html

[Diablo]

Southwest huh. So you're from one of the "red states". The Republicans wanted us to give them 4 more years. For what they did to this country, we should give them 10-20 years. Obama may not live up to the expectations and hopes of most of those that voted for him, but I'll predict that after 4 years, he will look like a genius compared to GWB. I also read Peter Hitchens diatribe and have concluded that he's full of it.

"Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America."

Having grown up in Chicago and living nearby for half a century, I know for certain that Obama is not part of the Chicago political machine. To believe that Obama takes orders from Daley is just plain stupid. And if you didn't know it, Richard Daley is the head of the Chicago machine.

[Robert M. Martinelli]

Well,

I don' t live in the US, and I'm not American either, but from my point of view the worst thing Americans can do today is starting to judge and trial Obama even before he has the time to sit on "that" chair.

Please, don't do the same mistake we've done for decades here; every time we voted and a certain party and/or coalition won the elections, the sole worry of the losing party/coalition was to make the winner fall ASAP, the h..k with people's worries and expectations. I don't know if we all in this country had that coming, whether we deserved it or not, but, as a matter of fact, things here have come to a point that I'm seriously questioning about getting a work abroad and leave as fast as I can (....I'll move myself and my family aside if we happen to be left half alive.....Townshend WAS right ).

You Americans ( and I mean you ALL, even the ones who "lost" ) have to be proud of one undisputed fact: you gave the whole world a great lesson of democracy, you showed the world that change is possible, and when someone goes wrong, you are capable to send him back home with no regret ( if someone is to regret GWB and his entourage I strongly encourage him to contact a psychiatrist ).

I respect Mr. McCain, I believe him to be a honest man and a patriot, and I believe he gave the world a great demonstration of his honesty and love for his country.The way he talked "the day after" ( recognizing Obama's victory, saying he's the president, stopping his electors' complaints and encouraging every American to help Obama and contribute to make your country a better country ) really moved me and gave me hope for a better future.

I lived and worked in the U.S. when I was younger, and I had the chance to meet many good and talented people, I believe that if you all join your forces and good will nothing will be impossible. A single man, even if his last name is Obama or McCain, can't change the world by himself, but with your help this could be possible.

You gave eight years to GWB and look at what you had in return.....give a chance to Obama, keeping in mind that his task is terribly difficult, given the times we all are living; if he goes wrong, you will have the chance to ( rightfully and legally ) send him back home in 2012.

God bless America!

Best regards

Bob

[madialex]

Thank You Bob!!!!!

That has got to be the most sane thing I have read here in a long while... You are not even an American and you have more insight than a lot of us do...

People from both sides need to read this and heed it............

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by madialex

Thank You Bob!!!!!

That has got to be the most sane thing I have read here in a long while... You are not even an American and you have more insight than a lot of us do...

People from both sides need to read this and heed it............

I don't think it's so great. In general it says "hey, don't do to Obama what you/we did to Bush". Why should those who oppose Obama and all he stands for go along with that? Should they put aside their own political philosophies for the greater good? (something the other side did not do) And would it actually be for the greater good? Or would it just hasten the descent into the third world described in the linked opinion piece? Don't those that oppose the left have a duty to stand up just as strongly as their counterparts have done for the past eight years? And even to raise the bar? Since they don't have the media to do their job for them they'll have to be even more vocal.

The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world....And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

[Enzo]

Fooey. The American people overall are and have been deeply moderate, not conservative or liberal. Even what are considered landslide elections are usually won or lost by only a few percentage points. The winner take all system in the electoral vote makes the results look far more lopsided than the popular sentiment.

And last time I looked, in Britain, they are not coverd in flies and starving in the streets. The per capita income is not $100. The majority of citizens there are not subsistence farmers hoping they can afford a goat for milk this year. "Third world." Hah!

And your crocodile tears over the media are amusing. Fox news on the TV are already well into their systematic carping on an Obama administration that doesn;t even start for two months. Sean Hannity is all over the TV screen as well as the radio waves ranting anti-Obama stuff. And should we really be expecting the all day long assault of Limbaugh, Hannity, et/al to dry up and fly away? They have regular listenerships in the millions, and why? Because it plays on the radio in officces and workplaces ALL DAY LONG all over this country. SO forgive me if I don't take too seriously your whining that the media won't be there to take Obama to task. You get the radio all day, you got your Wall Street Journal op ed, you got Fox, you got your Thomas Sowells and your Cal Thomases in the daily papers - yes even those liberal papers - and somehow because you think Katy Couric is left leaning in her daily 22 minutes, that cancels all this other stuff out?

[Robert M. Martinelli]

Originally Posted by hasserl

I don't think it's so great. In general it says "hey, don't do to Obama what you/we did to Bush".

First of all I want to apologize if my post sounded "bad".

I didn't mean to "preach" or to "be great", I just wanted to warn you all against the risk of making what I KNOW to be a huge mistake.

( And, talking about the "greater good", you just had an administration that lied to YOU all, building the need of a war on nothing but lies....why are you so forgiving with people who DID something wrong and so unforgiving with someone who, until now, is only guilty to have a different point of view on how to change things? )

I think it to be fool for Republicans to put all sorts of obstacles on Obama's path just to have, one day, the bitter satisfaction to be able to say "he has failed". It will be much like proclaiming your victory while sitting on a pile of rubble.

( And, remember, this is exactly what happened here, again and again ).

Being a democracy implies the capability of accepting the will of the majority, and losing the elections does not authorize people who "lost" to stop doing their duty or "the right thing".

Forgive me if, at this point, I quote Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" - Jack Ryan just had an acrid argument with Dr. Elizabeth Elliot, and talks about it with his former boss and mentor, Admiral Greer. Jack is intentioned to quit his job should Sen. Fowler ( Dr. Elliot's boss and presidential candidate ) win the elections. Admiral Greer, lying in his bed at the Bethesda Hospital ( actually dying from a cancer ) tries to rise up from his bed and snarls back in anger " Your duty is to serve the COUNTRY, not the people you happen to like!" -

This is the lesson to be learned.

No one is forcing you and the people who didn't vote for Obama to LIKE him, but I still think it' s worth for you all to give him a chance; he CAN and MIGHT fail, even with your support; he WILL undoubtedly fail without it. Are you sure the latter is the best solution for your country?

Think about it.....

Peace

Bob

[hasserl]

Bob, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I understand very well what you are saying, but as I tried to explain before, what you describe is exactly what has happened here. Bush hatred won out over respect and honor for country. Now we're all supposed to ignore that and give Obama free reign? It aint gonna happen. Obama has made his intentions and his philosophies clear, tax the rich, spread the wealth. His associations with radicals bodes ill for decisions he will make and policies he would enact if given free reign. It's our duty to challenge him every step of the way. And again, since the press won't do their job of being the watchdog, it means the people have to be even more vocal and strident.

BTW, I reject your description of Bush "building the need of a war on nothing but lies". In order to belive that you have to ignore all of this: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/ The Bush lied crap is just that, crap. We may or may not agree on whether he made the right decision, and actually you may be surprised at my position on that, but there is no denying the underlying causes that lead to the war.

[Enzo]

I find it interesting coming from you who wanted us to back the president's decisions 100% once they were made even if we didn't like them when it was Bush, that now the other side is in power you want to challenge Obama at every step. The VERY thing you criticize us for doing to Bush, you now propose is our DUTY as citizens.

You told us that these decisions were the presidents to make, not ours (in that case Bush), and right or wrong as citizens it was our duty to support him. Now you turn around and say the exact opposite because you don;t like the guy we elected.

[Steve A.]

Originally Posted by Enzo

I find it interesting coming from you who wanted us to back the president's decisions 100% once they were made even if we didn't like them when it was Bush, that now the other side is in power you want to challenge Obama at every step. The VERY thing you criticize us for doing to Bush, you now propose is our DUTY as citizens.

You told us that these decisions were the presidents to make, not ours (in that case Bush), and right or wrong as citizens it was our duty to support him. Now you turn around and say the exact opposite because you don;t like the guy we elected.

Well said, Mr. E!

It should be noted that Bush's approval rating was 90% after 9/11 and 71% right before we invaded Iraq, so it is not like everybody has been bashing Bush (just me! I have never been able to stand the guy...)

As for the comments from Bob from Italy, this is a free country and the people are free to disagree with Obama being president- but why do they have to be so snide and snarky about it?

For most of my life I have been a member of the Loyal Opposition in most situations: I disagree with the person in charge but I try not to be disrespectful about it (at least in public). But with the right wing radio shows that grew in popularity over the past 20 years and the right wing blogs that have grown over the past 5 years, I keep hearing a very snide right-wing cynicism from a lot of people... and what is frightening is that I keep hearing the exact same words from a lot of different people.

Not that the left wing radio shows and blogs are necessarily any better, but my motto has always been "question authority"- examine the issues intelligently and come to your own conclusions, which might be wrong but at least they are your own conclusions reflecting independent thought...

Steve Ahola

[Mark Hammer]

1) Last time I checked, the United States were not a monarchy or dictatorship. In fact, the same day that people voted for Barack Obama, they also voted for congress and senate representatives, among others, and I imagine a great many even split their vote, directing their presidential vote to Obama, and their other votes to Republican candidates they felt were worthier of their vote than the local Democrat opponent. And, if my meagre grounding in American government (as a foreigner) is correct, the congress and senate are there to provide a balance of power precisely to prevent the nation from going down the toilet by virtue of flawed presidential reasoning. If Obama poses as much of a threat as some posters here think he does, then I suggest very strongly that you reconsider your system of governance. And if the system itself seems to work fine, then you have nothing to fear from a single man, whether he is Barack Obama, or George Bush. The problem arises when the rest of government has the same dumb ideas and nothing smarter to offer or not enough capacity to set self-interest aside to do the right thing.

2) Contrary to presumptions that the fashionable garment to wear in the beltway will be Mao suits or Castro fatigues, "spreading the wealth" is NOT a communist/socialist threat. If you remember correctly, the gap between the wealthiest in the nation, and everyone else, has grown ever steadily wider. One need only look at the stats on the ratio of CEO salaries to those of their employees and how that has inflated over the past decade or so. Some of those among the wealthy are folks like Kenneth Lay who left the Enron scandal with wads of money, and the folks who continue to pull in multi-million dollar salaries as heads of the very companies that pleaded for government handouts and bailouts. That's not a call to cut off the heads of the aristocracy, or either prevent wealth or punish its acquisition. Rather, the folks who have enough money and power to determine how other people's money makes money can do just fine with a little less, and the people whose money they use to make their own fortunes, could stand to do with a little more. Trust me, as nuts as you expect it to get, it could never even begin to approach the Phillipines, where doctors earn an average of $7k/yr and many are going into nursing so they can get higher paying jobs in other countries. "Spreading" does not equal flattening, and "around" means more than it currently is, not absolutely equivalently.

Honestly, you Americans. Your politics are so heavily influenced by a media obsessed with filling up air time (and exactly how Entertainment Tonight qualifies to run items on candidates is beyond me...unless American electoral politics IS essentially entertainment), that everything is seen entirely in terms of good and evil. The very idea that you could have two (or more) decent candidates who come with certain ideas that they feel will benefit the nation, and you choose the one whose ideas you think are marginally more likely to be as beneficial as planned, seems to be from outer space. It always seems to be pitched as some destiny-of-the-universe cosmic battle between good and evil. Personally, I preferred Obama because I felt he would be more useful to the nation, and to the world community in general, than McCain, but as I have stated here and elsewhere, I would not have been disappointed with John McCain in the saddle. In my mind, he was a decent runner up. Obama, I consider as A material, McCain as A-, where GWB was B or B+ at his best (you will note that Obama gets no A+; we'll let time and events determine that). As for Sarah Palin, she was a fashion accessory to assist McCain's electability. I don't consider her as worthy understudy material, but then Dan Quayle never really caused any serious grief for the nation, and he wasn't exactly presidential material either. If she was the VP of a president more easily influenced and less possessed of his own ideas (like GWB), I would be concerned, but McCain is a strong enough individual to withstand the potential influences Palin would bring with her. If anything, I would have been more concerned about the instability of having a VP in the White House who was at loggerheads with a president who did not listen to her.

Sadly, as saturated as we are with American media here in Canada, that approach (the good vs evil thing) has infected our own politics. It's pathetic and simply eats away at the edges of political effectiveness, like salt on car fenders. Thankfully, we tend not to have as much AM radio here, and not quite as many talk shows to inflame partisan thinking. But it's moving in that direction.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Enzo

I find it interesting coming from you who wanted us to back the president's decisions 100% once they were made even if we didn't like them when it was Bush, that now the other side is in power you want to challenge Obama at every step. The VERY thing you criticize us for doing to Bush, you now propose is our DUTY as citizens.

You told us that these decisions were the presidents to make, not ours (in that case Bush), and right or wrong as citizens it was our duty to support him. Now you turn around and say the exact opposite because you don;t like the guy we elected.

Enzo, I never said anything about backing a Presidents decision 100% of the time, I never said anything remotely like that and this shows how you construe words and actions to fit your own rationalization of events. I said going to war with Iraq was the Presidents decision, not mine or yours. Then I said "The best thing to do in that case is to support the decision and get it done. The worst thing to do is exactly what has been done for the past 5 years, the lack of support." This in regards to WAR. Not in regards to policies about taxes and regulations. If Obama leads us into war you won't see me protesting on the streets in opposition.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Steve A.

Well said, Mr. E!

It should be noted that Bush's approval rating was 90% after 9/11 and 71% right before we invaded Iraq, so it is not like everybody has been bashing Bush (just me! I have never been able to stand the guy...)

As for the comments from Bob from Italy, this is a free country and the people are free to disagree with Obama being president- but why do they have to be so snide and snarky about it?

For most of my life I have been a member of the Loyal Opposition in most situations: I disagree with the person in charge but I try not to be disrespectful about it (at least in public). But with the right wing radio shows that grew in popularity over the past 20 years and the right wing blogs that have grown over the past 5 years, I keep hearing a very snide right-wing cynicism from a lot of people... and what is frightening is that I keep hearing the exact same words from a lot of different people.

Not that the left wing radio shows and blogs are necessarily any better, but my motto has always been "question authority"- examine the issues intelligently and come to your own conclusions, which might be wrong but at least they are your own conclusions reflecting independent thought...

Steve Ahola

Steve, the voices on the radio from the left have been far more shrill than those on the right, they've just been a lot harder to find (which is fine with me).

You may find it hard to believe, but I share your motto. Question authority. But I don't see much questioning authority going on around here. I see regurgitation of leftist propaganda. If you're going to be questioning authority, why no questioning of those on the left? I see only full unquestioned support. If a Democrat President had taken us to war with Iraq I fully believe all the vocal anti-war crowd would be fully in support of it. We wouldn't hear a peep out of them. I don't believe their angst against the war in Iraq is truly against the war, but against a President they hate.

Please, question authority. Please, question the Pelosi/Reed Congress. Please, question the Obama administration. I'll look forward to it. I'm sure there will be much to question in the next few years.

[Enzo]

We CAN't question authority before it takes power. YOu however are questioning that which is not.

[David Schwab]

Originally Posted by hasserl

"The best thing to do in that case is to support the decision and get it done. The worst thing to do is exactly what has been done for the past 5 years, the lack of support."

Originally Posted by hasserl

Please, question authority.

Except when it comes to war? Are you gullible or is it some misdirected macho thing?

No one is supporting the war because they don't agree with it. People are smart, and they can see the facts and make up their own minds. Meanwhile the interests that be are over there to make money, that's it. Not money for US citizens however. They control the oil and prices went up. Did you know they pay US and Iraqi contractors to have sandbags shipped from Kuwait to Iraq? Sand in bags. They don't have any sand in Iraq? This is where our tax dollars are going. THREE TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH!

Yes, question authority.

Or how about the fact that the Army is shipping contaminated Kuwait Sand to Idaho Landfill?

They are spending $341.4 million per day for what? Don't you question that? Don't you think that money could be more useful here at home?

People are making money off the war, but not us.

Obama can't do any worst that Bush did for the last eight years. McCain is a good man, but Obama was more qualified for the job, and the public voted.

If you want to hear some very intelligent views on the war, check out some interviews with Republican United States Congressman Ron Paul. I consider myself a Democrat, but I would have voted for him for President. He's really the only one that makes any sense.

Why do terrorist target us? One reason is we have no right to have military basses in their countries. Would we like it if the Saudis had a base here?

And have you ever questioned why the Bush administration allowed our seaports to be sold to foreign countries?

Someone's making money on all this, while they are bleeding us dry.

[hasserl]

David, make your point without insults. I've not insulted anyone, please don't insult me.

No one is supporting the war because they don't agree with it.

The truth is the majority of the US people supported the war. But after constant bad press by the media they have become war weary and are tired of the whole damn thing. Negative press all day, every day, nothing but bad press, eventually it takes a toll on the attitude of the people, they just want it over. They do not want to see any more stories of suicide bombings, or roadside IED's; blood, death and destruction. They don't want to see or hear anything about it good or bad, they just want it over. And the constant anti-war reporting and the anti-war ranting from hollywood leftists has been effective in steering the support of the people away. They may have been supportive to begin with, but they have been turned against it by a very effective propaganda campaign against it.

They are spending $341.4 million per day for what? Don't you question that? Don't you think that money could be more useful here at home?

Much less $ would have been spent, and less lives would have been lost and less injured, if there were no anti-war protesters providing support to the enemy and encouraging them to continue their efforts. Aren't you concerned about that?

Obama can't do any worst that Bush did for the last eight years.

Worst? Yes he can do worst. Much worst. Increase capitol gains taxes and corporate income tax, and watch a miserable economy fall completely into the dumps. Let's see how Obama manages a Democrat controlled Congress, which might yet end up with a filibuster proof Senate. Will he use the veto pen any more than Bush did when he had a Republican Congress? Watch the card check system pass and become law. Watch a "fairness doctrine" become law. Watch "global warming" legislation become law. Watch gun control laws be enacted. Watch Russia, N. Korea, Iran and Venezuela become increasingly boisterous and active. Watch Iran develop nuclear arms. Watch Iran use those arms against Israel, or provide them to other radicals that will do the deed for them. Watch enriched uranium from Iran get into the hands of terrorists that will use it in dirty bombs in western states, in particular inside the US. Watch entire US cities become uninhabitable. Watch Obama do nothing to control any of this.

Oh yes, things can get much, much worst.

McCain is a good man, but Obama was more qualified for the job, and the public voted.

Obama is the least qualified Presidential candidate since I've been watching elections, maybe ever. I don't know, I don't know all of the past candidates. Jimmy Carter was far more qualified than Obama, and look where he got us. But you're right, the public voted, and he's the man now.

[Enzo]

Much less $ would have been spent, and less lives would have been lost and less injured, if there were no anti-war protesters providing support to the enemy and encouraging them to continue their efforts. Aren't you concerned about that?

Oh please, this is such a crock. So you REALLY expect anyone to believe that Achmed and Hammid are sitting around Iraq somewhere, and...

Ach: Oh, you know Hammid, I am pretty tired of bombing things, you know? I just want to stay in and watch soccer tonight.
Ham: Oh I know what you are saying Ach, but we can't let those Americans down. You know the ones protesting their President. I would stop bombing stuff in a heartbeat except for them.
Ach: You are right, they give me the strength of purpose to blow something up tonight. What WAS I thinking?

If the USA suppressed any dissident publicity at home, you really expect us to believe the Iraqis who are currently bombers would no longer object to our presence there?


The total incompetence of W. Bush more than covers Carter in just one term, and Bush got two.

The truth is the majority of the US people supported the war.

And that is such old ground. The AMerican people supported what they were sold. They supported a war on terror, they supported US getting BACK at the ones who did 9/11 on us. Then Bush did a bait and switch, he attacked Iraq instead. At first Americans supported that because they were told over and over that it was part of the war on terror, and with the particular aid of Dick Cheney who TO THIS DAY still links Alqaeda and 9/11 to Iraq, they bought into it. But after time and losses they realized thay had been sold a bill of goods: Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11 in any way other than to applaud it after the fact, Iraq was not even lukewarm towards AlQaeda let alone an ally until they were DRAWN IN after we invaded. And the famous press conference wherein Bush proclaimed he wasn't concerned about Bin Laden. That was enough right there for many.

[Robert M. Martinelli]

Originally Posted by hasserl

The truth is the majority of the US people supported the war. But after constant bad press by the media they have become war weary and are tired of the whole damn thing. Negative press all day, every day, nothing but bad press, eventually it takes a toll on the attitude of the people, they just want it over.

Hi all,
you will forgive me one more time if I feel the need to express my feelings one more time, but the point raised is too important, as it involves freedom of expression.

IMHO your people got tired of the war but because the results are so poor and negligible that they' ve started questioning ( and us all along with them ) if it was worth it.
Thousands of young Americans died, ( together with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, most of them being innocent people ) five and half years have passed and the problem just got worse and worse. Even the ones who supported the war back then should start asking themselves some questions : Was it worth it? Have things been done in the best possible way? Was there another way? Is it still right to support the need of a war knowing what we know today?How can we make things better?

You cannot blame newspapers and TVs for reporting the truth....as a matter of fact things down there are NOT going well, and there's no denying it. Would you feel more comfortable if they all lied just to cope with the government policy? Such a thing is typical of dictatorships. I Know what I'm talking about : When Italy was losing the war, back in 1942-43, fascist newspapers and broadcasts here were proclaiming and boasting the "huge victories of the Italian Army".

Would you be happy if something similar would happen in "the land of the free"?

Sometimes changing your mind is not to be considered a sign of weakness but a sign of strength and open-mindedness. Can we all face a problem, and possibly fix it, by simply turning our head away from it or refusing its existence?

"Questioning authority" means citizens still have the right to come to their own conclusions, how are they supposed to be able to think with their own brain if the media would lie to them just to please the government?

My humble .00001 cents

Best regards

Bob

[Mark Hammer]

If I may be so bold....

There was a brief moment when "the media" (you know, the hostile ones whose negativism is undermining the mission) were manipulated by the White House into fostering support for "stopping Saddam". It was followed by that few weeks of shock and awe, and the famous "Mission Accomplished" experience. And THAT was what something approximating a majority of vocal Americans was in support of. I do not believe for one moment that there has ever been a majority in support of what followed those first few weeks. There has never been a majority in support of what the wholesale disassembly of any governance structure did to the region and the way it fostered vicious factional fighting. There has never been a majority of support for the cost in lives and dollars and reputation. In short, there has never been a majority in support of an actual WAR and all the stuff that goes along with it, only a majority in support of some sort of Toby Keith let's-kick-their-asses jingoism, and support for some abstract notion of "bringing stability to the region"....which it has never done, and which many voices predicted would and could simply not happen. In short, the Iraq invasion has been a colossal exercise in cognitive dissonance. They rushed into something stupid and pointless and expensive and tragic, and now that they are "waist deep in the big muddy", they try to derive honour in how they survive it and extricate themselves from it. The White House and everyone they co-opted into it did something stupid, and have spent the last 5 years persuading themselves it was the right thing to do, just so they don't have to confront or admit the stupidity and duplicitousness of it. And as much as the folks fighting there might talk about how there is nowhere else they would rather be, and how worthy the cause is, factof the matter is they aren't immune to cognitive dissonance either. Soldiers, as much as anyone else, convince themselves that they are "doing the right thing" when they are forced into untenable situations by bad judgment. I appreciate their sense of honour but it is sadly misplaced.

While hasserl makes his points sincerely, and in earnest (not a hint of trolling, so I salute the honesty and authenticity of your beliefs, sir), he's been sold a bill of goods. There is so much revisionism in that last post that it makes me shake my head. I'm sorry if it sounds hostile or condescending. I do try to get along with everyone here, and accept other points of view (and hasserl's are leagues above some of the tripe that passed for AMPAGE posts in the months after 09/11), but I simply cannot buy what is being sold or swallow it with any beverage.