"This, I believe, is the GWOT manifestation of the core Democratic void: without universal animating principles, they are left with an ideology that is just a hastily stitched patchwork quilt, where no thought is given to an overall pattern, or even whether adjoining patches match or clash violently."

The absense of "animating principles" also animates their total lack of self-awareness and insensitivity to how their words and actions are perceived outside of their "circle of trust", to borrow a phrase. Michelle Malkin, among others, has documented this phenomenon quite extensively. I think this also accounts for the "I voted for it before I voted against it" phenomenon.

They also seem incapable of experiencing the cognitive dissonance normally associated with reconciling what they *just* *know* *to* *be* *true* with new, conflicting information; they just move on to the next trope.

-Iraqi regime change became U.S. policy way back in 1998, thus belying the claim that Bush cooked up the war on his own? "Bush lied people died; Clinton lied nobody died!"

-Documented connections between Hussein and terrorism, including Al Qaeda? "Zarqawi was in Kurdish controlled areas. Baghdad hospital? LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA..."

-Those TANG documents were fakes? "But they accurately represented the true story behind Bush's dereliction of duty! They--they--they were FRAUDTHENTIC!"

-The claim of a unilateral war belied by the participation of 30+ other countries? "Hey, look! It's the Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced!"

-Wow, those fine American troops didn't get bogged down in the cruel Afghan winter after all, did they? And the Afghan transition to democracy went relatively smoothly? "Did you know poppy production is up?"

-So you don't have any proof that American soldiers intentionally targeted journalists in Iraq? "Well--well--well, journalists have died in Iraq, haven't they?"

The $64,000 questions are: how long with this political St. Vitus dance last? What will it take to break the fever and restore the patient to health? Or is that even possible?

They've buttered their bread, and now they have to sleep in it.

Heh. Mix metaphors much? Looks like you could get a job at Ye Olde Metaphor Bar, serving up expertly-mixed metaphors all day long. :-)

On a serious note: I think you're right on the money with the Democratic understanding of the War on Terror. I'm reminded of once conversation I had with a guy who was insisting that 9/11 was not an act of war, but rather a criminal act, and that we should be pursuing the War on Terror on that basis. And most of the criticisms of the Bush administration do flow logically from that premise: wiretapping without a warrant, and so on.

In fact, I think you're a bit too harsh in your criticism of the Democrat understanding of the WoT when you say "without universal animating principles, they are left with an ideology that is just a hastily stitched patchwork quilt". Their fundamental principle is that the WoT should be a police action rather than a war. And as I said, most of their criticisms of Bush do flow logically from that premise. The premise may be faulty, but their arguments are at least logically consistent.

"We were attacked on 9/11 by a criminal organization named al-Qaeda;"

Yeah, many of the lefties I work with believe this too. It's like they think al-Qaeda is SPECTRE or something. If we could just get Dr. No we could all go home and drink martinis--shaken, not stirred, of course.

> They also now agree that the compound (when was the last time a normal, residential house was referred to as a "compound?")

Does the Kennedy retreat at Hyannis count as "normal"??

> # We were attacked on 9/11 by a criminal organization named al-Qaeda;
# Al-Qaeda consists of a handful of people: bin Laden, Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, and just a few other associates;
# Our primary duty is to round up the masterminds of al-Qaeda, arrest them, and put them on trial;
# Because they're international "criminals," they must be tried by an international body: the International Court of Justice (World Court) at the Hague, Belgium's War Crimes Law, or the International Criminal Court (also at the Hague but distinct from the World Court);

You know, a lot of this thinking can be traced back to Nuremberg. It was a noble "gesture" to have the trials, with the intent to show the world that there would be "justice". Lousy legacy, though.

I think you're absolutely right. It occurred to me during the 2004 election campaign that many of the differences between Bush and Kerry stemmed from a simple disagreement: Have we been at war ever since 9/11? Republicans answer that we have, and see the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, interrogation techniques, eavesdropping, and the like as legitimate means of pursuing a rather unconventional war. Democrats think we have not, except to the extent that the President has wrongly led us into wars that we could without any damage to our self-interest have avoided. They see all of the above as unreasonably extreme measures taken in what ought to be viewed as the pursuit of a small group of criminals. This has some surprising consequences: "I voted for it before I voted against it" sounds ridiculous in the context of fighting a war, but much less absurd if analogous to "I supported that strategy for pursuing the criminal before ultimately deciding against it."

In my view, this is why one should not vote for a Democrat (Lieberman excepted) even if one prefers his/her other policy positions to those of a Republican. Democrats fundamentally misconceive the nature of the war on terror, and, thereby, the most important aspects of our international and domestic situations. It's hard to win a war without realizing that you're in one.

Robin Munn:

Their fundamental principle is that the WoT should be a police action rather than a war.

But surely that isn't a principle, is it? It would ordinarily be a conclusion drawn from some principle. Instead, "9/11 was a criminal act that should be resolved via law enforcement" is just another one of those patches on the quilt.

Dafydd

Jeffie G has the 411.
bombmaker bombed
Oh! frabjous day!

Excellent analysis, Dafydd. I've linked from Why The Left Is So 9/10.

Dafydd, first of all, I wanted to give belated welcome to the blogosphere. I consider myself a Starfleet officer and therefore have an affinity for you already.

However, I have absolutely *no idea* why you mentioned Indonesia in your list of countries. It has a bunch of Muslims. So what? The country is mostly secular, most of its Islam is watered down either by this secular distance or other religious influences... I'm gonna guess you put it in there since there has been SOME terrorism, but really, probably not even as much as occurs in the United States. I honestly don't get it. Indonesia is far more of an ally, and can be even better, than an enemy of any kind.

And things are getting better, too.

American Leftists (Democrat Party), and *THEIR* MSM have tried everything possible to tear down President Bush...AKA, "W" and "43". Nothing sticks to him.

The NYT's tried a Dan Rather's CBS move, and showed some poor Pakistani boy and his tribe suffering because of "43". The boy's whole tribe swore that there were "no foreigners" and the Democrat Party's *OWN* MSM ran with that story, and even tried to help it by 'doctoring' the photos. Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf said it best:

"Don't protect these foreigners, and such will not happen!"

MSM was not interested in such a reply from Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, and it went un-reported.

If America's Democrat Party isn't Voted out in 2006, then America is in serious trouble...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

They've buttered their bread, and now they have to sleep in it. This political pointillism, more than any other defect of the Democratic Party, will keep them out of power in this country for the forseeable future.

The Dems don't want to fight, unless it is against America. The Dems cry when a Commander-in-Chief stands up, and spend millions of dollars investigating why it happened...then, they want to spend millions of dollars more when a Commander-in-Chief investigates!!!

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wishes to kill your ugly daughters, or place your pretty daughters into Burkas, for sex latter. Simple as that, The Democrat Party once talked about Saddams Iraq being the threat...now they talk about Iran being the threat.

Talk is cheap...send your Daughters to me before it is too late,

KårmiÇømmünîs†

From STRATFOR's George Friedman:

---------------------------------------

Iran's Redefined Strategy

The Iranians have broken the International Atomic Energy Agency seals on some of their nuclear facilities. They did this very deliberately and publicly to make certain that everyone knew that Tehran was proceeding with its nuclear program. Prior to this, and in parallel, the Iranians began to -- among other things -- systematically bait the Israelis, threatening to wipe them from the face of the earth.

The question, of course, is what exactly the Iranians are up to. They do not yet have nuclear weapons. The Israelis do. The Iranians have now hinted that (a) they plan to build nuclear weapons and have implied, as clearly as possible without saying it, that (b) they plan to use them against Israel. On the surface, these statements appear to be begging for a pre-emptive strike by Israel. There are many things one might hope for, but a surprise visit from the Israeli air force is not usually one of them. Nevertheless, that is exactly what the Iranians seem to be doing, so we need to sort this out.

There are four possibilities:

1. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, is insane and wants to be attacked because of a bad childhood.
2. The Iranians are engaged in a complex diplomatic maneuver, and this is part of it.
3. The Iranians think they can get nuclear weapons -- and a deterrent to Israel -- before the Israelis attack.
4. The Iranians, actually and rationally, would welcome an Israeli -- or for that matter, American -- air strike.

Let's begin with the insanity issue, just to get it out of the way. One of the ways to avoid thinking seriously about foreign policy is to dismiss as a nutcase anyone who does not behave as you yourself would. As such, he is unpredictable and, while scary, cannot be controlled. You are therefore relieved of the burden of doing anything about him. In foreign policy, it is sometimes useful to appear to be insane, as it is in poker: The less predictable you are, the more power you have -- and insanity is a great tool of unpredictability. Some leaders cultivate an aura of insanity.

However, people who climb to the leadership of nations containing many millions of people must be highly disciplined, with insight into others and the ability to plan carefully. Lunatics rarely have those characteristics. Certainly, there have been sociopaths -- like Hitler -- but at the same time, he was a very able, insightful, meticulous man. He might have been crazy, but dismissing him because he was crazy -- as many did -- was a massive mistake. Moreover, leaders do not rise alone. They are surrounded by other ambitious people. In the case of Ahmadinejad, he is answerable to others above him (in this case, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), alongside him and below him. He did not get to where he is by being nuts -- and even if we think what he says is insane, it clearly doesn't strike the rest of his audience as insane. Thinking of him as insane is neither helpful nor clarifying.

The Three-Player Game

So what is happening?

First, the Iranians obviously are responding to the Americans. Tehran's position in Iraq is not what the Iranians had hoped it would be. U.S. maneuvers with the Sunnis in Iraq and the behavior of Iraqi Shiite leaders clearly have created a situation in which the outcome will not be the creation of an Iranian satellite state. At best, Iraq will be influenced by Iran or neutral. At worst, it will drift back into opposition to Iran -- which has been Iraq's traditional geopolitical position. This is not satisfactory. Iran's Iraq policy has not failed, but it is not the outcome Tehran dreamt of in 2003.

There is a much larger issue. The United States has managed its position in Iraq -- to the extent that it has been managed -- by manipulating the Sunni-Shiite fault line in the Muslim world. In the same way that Richard Nixon manipulated the Sino-Soviet split, the fundamental fault line in the Communist world, to keep the Soviets contained and off-balance late in the Vietnam War, so the Bush administration has used the primordial fault line in the Islamic world, the Sunni-Shiite split, to manipulate the situation in Iraq.

Washington did this on a broader scale as well. Having enticed Iran with new opportunities -- both for Iran as a nation and as the leading Shiite power in a post-Saddam world -- the administration turned to Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia and enticed them into accommodation with the United States by allowing them to consider the consequences of an ascended Iran under canopy of a relationship with the United States. Washington used that vision of Iran to gain leverage in Saudi Arabia. The United States has been moving back and forth between Sunnis and Shia since the invasion of Afghanistan, when it obtained Iranian support for operations in Afghanistan's Shiite regions. Each side was using the other. The United States, however, attained the strategic goal of any three-player game: It became the swing player between Sunnis and Shia.

This was not what the Iranians had hoped for.

Reclaiming the Banner

There is yet another dimension to this. In 1979, when the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini deposed the Shah of Iran, Iran was the center of revolutionary Islamism. It both stood against the United States and positioned itself as the standard-bearer for radical Islamist youth. It was Iran, through its creation, Hezbollah, that pioneered suicide bombings. It championed the principle of revolutionary Islamism against both collaborationist states like Saudi Arabia and secular revolutionaries like Yasser Arafat. It positioned Shi'ism as the protector of the faith and the hope of the future.

In having to defend against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980s, and the resulting containment battle, Iran became ensnared in a range of necessary but compromising relationships. Recall, if you will, that the Iran-Contra affair revealed not only that the United States used Israel to send weapons to Iran, but also that Iran accepted weapons from Israel. Iran did what it had to in order to survive, but the complexity of its operations led to serious compromises. By the late 1990s, Iran had lost any pretense of revolutionary primacy in the Islamic world. It had been flanked by the Sunni Wahhabi movement, al Qaeda.

The Iranians always saw al Qaeda as an outgrowth of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and therefore, through Shiite and Iranian eyes, never trusted it. Iran certainly didn't want al Qaeda to usurp the position of primary challenger to the West. Under any circumstances, it did not want al Qaeda to flourish. It was caught in a challenge. First, it had to reduce al Qaeda's influence, or concede that the Sunnis had taken the banner from Khomeini's revolution. Second, Iran had to reclaim its place. Third, it had to do this without undermining its geopolitical interests.

Tehran spent the time from 2003 through 2005 maximizing what it could from the Iraq situation. It also quietly participated in the reduction of al Qaeda's network and global reach. In doing so, it appeared to much of the Islamic world as clever and capable, but not particularly principled. Tehran's clear willingness to collaborate on some level with the United States in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in the war on al Qaeda made it appear as collaborationist as it had accused the Kuwaitis or Saudis of being in the past. By the end of 2005, Iran had secured its western frontier as well as it could, had achieved what influence it could in Baghdad, had seen al Qaeda weakened. It was time for the next phase. It had to reclaim its position as the leader of the Islamic revolutionary movement for itself and for Shi'ism.

Thus, the selection of the new president was, in retrospect, carefully engineered. After President Mohammed Khatami's term, all moderates were excluded from the electoral process by decree, and the election came down to a struggle between former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani -- an heir to Khomeini's tradition, but also an heir to the tactical pragmatism of the 1980s and 1990s -- and Ahmadinejad, the clearest descendent of the Khomeini revolution that there was in Iran, and someone who in many ways had avoided the worst taints of compromise.

Ahmadinejad was set loose to reclaim Iran's position in the Muslim world. Since Iran had collaborated with Israel during the 1980s, and since Iranian money in Lebanon had mingled with Israeli money, the first thing he had to do was to reassert Iran's anti-Zionist credentials. He did that by threatening Israel's existence and denying the Holocaust. Whether he believed what he was saying is immaterial. Ahmadinejad used the Holocaust issue to do two things: First, he established himself as intellectually both anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish, taking the far flank among Islamic leaders; and second, he signaled a massive breach with Khatami's approach.

Khatami was focused on splitting the Western world by dividing the Americans from the Europeans. In carrying out this policy, he had to manipulate the Europeans. The Europeans were always open to the claim that the Americans were being rigid and were delighted to serve the role of sophisticated mediator. Khatami used the Europeans' vanity brilliantly, sucking them into endless discussions and turning the Iran situation into a problem the Europeans were having with the United States.

But Tehran paid a price for this in the Muslim world. In drawing close to the Europeans, the Iranians simply appeared to be up to their old game of unprincipled realpolitik with people -- Europeans -- who were no better than the Americans. The Europeans were simply Americans who were weaker. Ahmadinejad could not carry out his strategy of flanking the Wahhabis and still continue the minuet with Europe. So he ended Khatami's game with a bang, with a massive diatribe on the Holocaust and by arguing that if there had been one, the Europeans bore the blame. That froze Germany out of any further dealings with Tehran, and even the French had to back off. Iran's stock in the Islamic world started to rise.

The Nuclear Gambit

The second phase was for Iran to very publicly resume -- or very publicly claim to be resuming -- development of a nuclear weapon. This signaled three things:

1. Iran's policy of accommodation with the West was over.
2. Iran intended to get a nuclear weapon in order to become the only real challenge to Israel and, not incidentally, a regional power that Sunni states would have to deal with.
3. Iran was prepared to take risks that no other Muslim actor was prepared to take. Al Qaeda was a piker.

The fundamental fact is that Ahmadinejad knows that, except in the case of extreme luck, Iran will not be able to get nuclear weapons. First, building a nuclear device is not the same thing as building a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon must be sufficiently small, robust and reliable to deliver to a target. A nuclear device has to sit there and go boom. The key technologies here are not the ones that build a device but the ones that turn a device into a weapon -- and then there is the delivery system to worry about: range, reliability, payload, accuracy. Iran has a way to go.

A lot of countries don't want an Iranian bomb. Israel is one. The United States is another. Throw Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and most of the 'Stans into this, and there are not a lot of supporters for an Iranian bomb. However, there are only two countries that can do something about it. The Israelis don't want to get the grief, but they are the ones who cannot avoid action because they are the most vulnerable if Iran should develop a weapon. The United States doesn't want Israel to strike at Iran, as that would massively complicate the U.S. situation in the region, but it doesn't want to carry out the strike itself either.

This, by the way, is a good place to pause and explain to readers who will write in wondering why the United States will tolerate an Israeli nuclear force but not an Iranian one. The answer is simple. Israel will probably not blow up New York. That's why the United States doesn't mind Israel having nukes and does mind Iran having them. Is that fair? This is power politics, not sharing time in preschool. End of digression.

Intra-Islamic Diplomacy

If the Iranians are seen as getting too close to a weapon, either the United States or Israel will take them out, and there is an outside chance that the facilities could not be taken out with a high degree of assurance unless nukes are used. In the past, our view was that the Iranians would move carefully in using the nukes to gain leverage against the United States. That is no longer clear. Their focus now seems to be not on their traditional diplomacy, but on a more radical, intra-Islamic diplomacy. That means that they might welcome a (survivable) attack by Israel or the United States. It would burnish Iran's credentials as the true martyr and fighter of Islam.

Meanwhile, the Iranians appear to be reaching out to the Sunnis on a number of levels. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of a radical Shiite group in Iraq with ties to Iran, visited Saudi Arabia recently. There are contacts between radical Shia and Sunnis in Lebanon as well. The Iranians appear to be engaged in an attempt to create the kind of coalition in the Muslim world that al Qaeda failed to create. From Tehran's point of view, if they get a deliverable nuclear device, that's great -- but if they are attacked by Israel or the United States, that's not a bad outcome either.

In short, the diplomacy that Iran practiced from the beginning of the Iraq-Iran war until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be ended. Iran is making a play for ownership of revolutionary Islamism on behalf of itself and the Shia. Thus, Tehran will continue to make provocative moves, while hoping to avoid counterstrikes. On the other hand, if there are counterstrikes, the Iranians will probably be able to live with that as well.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/premium.php
------------------------

Iran has been at War with America since Jimmy "The Mullah" Carter stroked the Islamic ego.

It took decades to Win the "Cold War", and we understood the threat. Decades have gone by, and much of America does not see the threat of Iran.

Well, Iran wants to make it clear to the whole World, that Saddam Hussein's Iraq could not beat America, and that Osama's al Qaeda ain't squat.

Radical Islamism is now willing to use all options, just to to bring in new members to their cause. Just to prove that Iran helped to start it all...

The right to Vote is never easy, and the Iranian People chose to not Vote, and now they have a President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in charge of Iran. The Iranians had their chance, and laid down before the Mullahs. Screw them all, since a no Vote supported the Mullahs, and they were once brave enough to revolt against the Shah. Screw them, and may their offspring die on Nuke dust!!!

Afraid to even Vote...then may your Karma rule your offspring forever!!!

*NUKE* Iran now!!! Or, Vote, or be nuked...

KårmiÇømmünîs†
PS. Quoting and or blockquoting should not need HMTL (whatever) for each paragraph. Thus i use it rarely here, since it needs to be fixed. ;)

Dafydd,

You and i both know that You do not need "Approval" here...so write away,

Karmi

great friedman link, karmi--let me add some islamic flavor.
Ahmadinejad is not a lunatic, altho even wretchard and VDH are fooled by the act. think about how he sounds to muslims, not how he sounds to the west.
he is also playing off of strong religious themes. he is playing the karim, the generous hero of islamic legend, fiery and fiercely devoted to his tribe, capable of selfless generousity.

Iraq is terrifing to the Iranian shi'ia--they are persians, not arabs. Najaf is the holy city of the shi'ia, as Mecca is the holy city of the Sunni. altho the iranian and iraqi shi'ia are both "twelvers", the mahdi, the twelfth imam, will not be persian, but arab and descend from the line of the Imam Ali. so, in a way, Ayatollah Khameni is a pretender to the mantle of Sistani, the true heir of Mohammed.
as iraq is liberated and becomes self-governing, the iranian clerics are in more and more danger of losing their authority. pilgrims travelling to najaf for the shi'ia version of the haaj will bring back the evil virus of democracy and self-governence.
this adds an element of urgency to the whole scenario, the iranians must solidify their position as leaders of the muslim world before iraq becomes a success.

The Iranian People are out of time. Such happens to mobs. They overthrew the Shah back around 1979, but did not stand up to Mahmoud when they had the chance.

Some Cracker Flavor...so to speak,

Karmi

PS. BTW, matoko, thanks for the *GREAT* input. Clearly, Iran is desperate, but time has ran out for them when Condi says what she said today. Apparently she placed 'Da Ball into W's hands today. Tic Toc Tic Toc...Iran rushes to build a Nuke before they are Nuked...Tic Toc Tic Toc goes 'Da Dualistic Clock.

Karmi

Admiral:

I'm gonna guess you put it in there since there has been SOME terrorism, but really, probably not even as much as occurs in the United States.

By "probably not... much" terrorism, you mean apart from Jemaah Islamiya, Laskar Jihad, al-Qaeda, the Bali bombing, the string of bombings of churches, and the innumerable kidnappings?

Yes, the country of Indonesia is secular and moderate; but they have a terrible, terrible problem with jihadi terrorism, and they're only now finally admitting it and starting to wonder what to do about it.

They haven't allowed the US to come in and really go after the terrorists... but JI and LJ in particular are closely allied with al-Qaeda, and there are actual large aQ cells in Indonesia, as well -- and this poses a direct threat to the United States, our interests, and our allies.

Sure, Indonesia is poor, backward, and far from our shores. So is Afghanistan.

It was with good reason that I included Indonesia among those countries where we will eventually have to extend the GWOT -- hopefully with the government's blessing, but with it or without it.

The Philippines is another such, as is Iran, Syria, Egypt (the founder of Egyptian Islamic Jihad was none other than Ayman al-Zawahiri, now the al-Qaeda #2), the PA, Pakistan, India, Chechnya, and possibly even Venezuela, God help us, if Hugo Chavez continues sucking up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We currently have American boots on the ground fighting terrorists in literally scores of countries (see Imperial Grunts, by Robert D. Kaplan). Sometimes it's just a handfull; sometimes as many as two or three hundred. Most are Special Ops, but there are regular soldiers and Marines, seamen and airmen, as well. Some are in country with the knowledge and cooperation of the host; others are entirely black operations, completely clandestine, and would be shot at if the host country knew.

The odds that we already have SpecOps in Indonesia approaches 100%; I would guess that Jakarta knows it but hasn't told its people... who are far more Islamist than is the government.

Dafydd

Well Dafydd, I agree with you on all the points you just listed for the reasons you listed, but putting Indonesia in the same category as countries like Iran, Syria, and North Korea, where the states ACTIVELY SPONSOR terrorism seems like a distasteful reduction of the issue to me. Don't you think this is an important distinction? I know for a fact that we have such troops in Indonesia and I think we're doing a good job there, but it's a wild little set of islands. I'm spending the summer there myself.

Admiral:

Indonesia is a major hotbed of terrorism; three of the worst terrorist organizations in the world are very active there (and for two -- JI and Laskar Jihad -- Indonesia is their home base); there is far more terrorism there than in the United States, which is the comparison you made.

It's a country whose government is in grave peril and could fall within the next five years, unless they start fighting a lot harder against terrorism. Its people are mixed, but a growing proportion are Islamist and radical. And we may very well end up having to go to war there... which was the point of that litany of countries.

The fact that the government is not (yet) on the side of the terrorists is important as far as military strategy -- but that's true in Pakistan, as well. It's not an important distinction in the context of the post: places we may eventually have to send troops in large numbers.

I am not saying that Indonesia is a terrible place; I'm saying it's a very dangerous place, it has a terrible terrorism problem, and it will eventually have to be taken care of, one way or another.

If the government really gets serious about fighting the terrorists and begins openly working with us, that would be good... but on the other hand, look what just happened in Bolivia with the election of radical cocaine advocate Evo Morales, and in Venzuela with the election of Communist strongman Hugo Chavez. Civilization is not a one-way ratchet; it is very possible for countries to slide backwards -- sometimes very rapidly.

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)