It's a big chunk of the American population, and they are loyal to their "ism".

I'm more worried about how to deal with these unrepentant brainwashed masses than anything else. Ever tried arguing with a "dittohead"? They make Shitter look rational.

They still believe Bush "kept us safe". How do you reach someone so stupid and afraid of the boogeyman that they believe this?

obtaining sexual satisfaction from a nerve-gas plus Jew funfest. (bamage, I think your figure is low, if you include the demented as well as the merely deranged)

That said, Obama has already signalled that there will be no change. He put on his kippah and performed ritual obeisance like a good boy.

The change, if it is to happen, is through aggregate individual action. Stop feeding the beast. Don't buy their shit. Don't believe their lies.

The Depression will cure a lot of this stuff. You can't fund imperial adventures for someone else's empire with borrowed money forever. 1989 hasn't happened here yet but it is inevitable.

I have read it in the past when an uncle bought a subscription as a barbed gift for my (Very right-wing) father. And I have heard it described as "middle-brow" in contrast to Harpers' more brainy standards.

But to employ writers of such ignorance? Did the Atlantic succumb to the institutional willful ignorance that "informs" the Bush junta's base?

I've said this here before, and I think it bears repeating: we have met the enemy and he is (among) us. It will take a long long time to overcome the disrespect for learning and thought and critical intelligence that the Right's obscenely irresponsible "leadership" feeds. It will take institutional change, and a long hard slog of re-education for the followers. It may require ritual humiliation and shunning for the likes of Limbaugh the liar.

Starve the Beast. It's the only way. Money talks, and lack of money starves. What if 50 million people quit paying federal income tax? (Legally, I mean - by reducing their incomes).

Kind of similar to what's happening now - Paramilitary Squads (SWAT) invading the homes of citizens all in the name of the "WAr on Drugs".

And I agree, the M is for "messiah" - the odious evilspeaker Limbaugh refers to Obama as "the Messiah" all the time.

The problems run very very deep in US society. And a whole lot of people not only don't want to change their ways, they now feel more aggrieved and certain that their hate is right.

I suppose, however, that a lot of the authoritarian dull normals will come into line, since they worship whoever's the Boss.

A lot of them will join law enforcement.

Talk about reaping the whirlwind.

Consider the Iraq Invasion as a giant training ground for the coming United Police State of America.

I suppose we deserve these sins to be visited upon us as we have inflicted them upon Iraqi civilians.

Sorry to beat this particular dead horse any deader, but Jebbie is right about what Obama said. I stand (or rather sit) corrected.

And I agree that a soldier's sacrifice is not necessarily diminished or any less honorable if he is led by dishonorable men on a dishonorable mission.

However, I agree that so much political division in this country is due to re-fighting the Vietnam undeclared "war". Cheney and Bush, despite their avoidance of any personal sacrifice, represent those who think the Vietnem war was right and the DFH's wrong.

I stand with the DFH's against the generals and the war profiteers and the lying media.

Good luck, President Obama. Hopeful, but skeptical.

You said: "He was referring to those who fought those battles, not whether the conflict they occured in was right or wrong."

If he had actually said what you say he said, I would wholeheartedly support it. But he didn't - he said they were "defending America". Perhaps you think that invading Vietnam, bombing peasants into the stone age from 50,000 feet up, is somehow defensive, but I think you're in a minority.

IMHO, there is nothing worse than to send honorable men on a dishonorable mission. It dishonors their sacrifice, it dishonors them, and it dishonors we in whose name they act.

I have three great uncles buried in military cemeteries in Flanders in a war in which both my grandfathers fought and were fortunate to survive. I honor them and their ultimate sacrifice to advance my tribe. I don't honor the cynical incompetent Colonel Blimps and their wealthy paymasters who put them and millions of others into the meat grinder.

Just saying....

"Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers" (quoting from memory)

I admit to being uncomfortable with this construction also.

Is a Buddhist a non-believer? A Wiccan? A Zoroastrian? A Hindu?

Non-monotheists need not apply?

Odin help me! Om Shivaya!

Just dismayed by President Obama's approving reference to Khe Sanh. It was there for a reason - does anyone doubt that his speech was reviewed word by word for days?

SO what is the reason?

My take is it's code for business as usual in the Military-Industrial complex.

And secondarily a sop to those who still believe that invading Vietnam was somehow a noble cause.

In any case, it's not a good sign, IMHO. And I find it hard to cheer for yet more homages to militaristic imperialism, whoever is mouthing them.

I was a delegate for Obama in my county caucus. On a purely symbolic level, his election, IMHO, is a good thing.

But when he drops an approving reference to a battle in Vietnam in his first speech, am I supposed to swallow my disgust and anger?

It's not cynical to call people on their shit. Sorry if if sprayed your rose-colored glasses.