Hey everybody, I'm Scott.
It's fundraising time again at Antiwar.com.
We need your help, and here's how you can help.
Stop by Antiwar.com slash donate, or call Angela Keaton, our development director, at 323-512-7095.
That's 323-512-7095, or you can shoot her an email over to akeaton at Antiwar.com.
Thank you very much for your support.www.antiwarradio.com All right, y'all.
Antiwar Radio, Scott Horton here with what I guess is going to be a web-only exclusive kind of thing.
Recording an interview with good old Chris Floyd, my very favorite Eeyore on the whole interweb.
I mean that in a kind way.
I always did like Eeyore.
Welcome to the show, Chris.
How are you?
I'm doing pretty good.
The website is chris-floyd.com.
The book and the website are both Empire Burlesque.
And you're picking on my favorite person to pick on, and boy, I like picking on a lot of different people.
Fred Kagan with his big, fat neck has got to be my favorite of all.
Well, he's certainly a big target.
That's for sure.
He's a big, juicy target.
His neck is so fat, Chris.
How does he fit all the food in his neck that way?
I don't know.
He probably has it shipped in from Halliburton.
I don't know what he does.
I'd have to get it all down there.
Boy, I bet a 12-year-old kid could take big, fat neck Fred Kagan in a fight.
That guy's the biggest weenie I've ever seen and, of course, the worst warmonger of all.
Well, he's quite an excessive warmonger, that's for sure.
You know, you're talking about this piece that I wrote this week.
This was something that was buried in the L.A.
Times story.
I haven't seen it anywhere else, but Obama and Petraeus have hired him.
The L.A.
Times said they've hired two experts known for their strong emphasis on fighting corruption.
One of them was Frederick Kagan.
Now, I mean, you know and, of course, I guess a lot of your listeners know that Kagan is a long-time, deep-dyed neocon.
He goes all the way back to Project for the New American Century and all those guys who used to pray for a second Pearl Harbor, as you remember, back before we got one, luckily for them.
But he was also known more recently as one of the primary architects of Bush's surge in Iraq.
He was one of the people who drew up – he's the intellectual father of the surge.
He drew up some articles about it when Bush was trying to – this was the worst part of the Iraq War, you remember, the worst part PR-wise for the Iraq War when people were getting sick of this about 2006, 2007.
2006 it was.
And so Kagan drew up this plan about this PR surge, basically what it is.
And so that's where he comes from.
And now suddenly this guy who, as you say, he's an arch-war monger.
He always has been.
He pushes war, pushes war, pushes the imperial agenda.
I mean, that's what he's there for.
He's been taken on by Bush and Petraeus to do what?
I don't know, somehow guide them in their pacification of Afghanistan.
Chris Floyd, your subconscious is just leaking out all over the place, calling Barack Obama George Bush like that.
Was that on purpose?
Oh, did I call him George Bush?
Yeah, you did.
Well, I mean, what can you say?
I mean, if the $900 Gucci shoe fits, then they have to wear it.
Yeah, go ahead.
So I think you're probably just sore and jealous because Fred Kagan and his surge worked like a charm, right?
And he said it wasn't going to.
It was a wonderful success, as you know, as you can tell over in Baghdad this week.
Was it just yesterday or something?
They blew up, the day before yesterday I guess, 60, 70 of their army recruits at a recruiting station in Baghdad.
And what got me, I was reading a story about that, and of course it's a horrible, very horrible human tragedy.
But what also struck me was that the story said, you know, this was the worst such incident in Iraq since, you know, what are you going to say?
Since the dawn of time, since the turn of the century, since 1950, since June 24th, something like that, just a few weeks before.
Right.
And I went back and looked at some, I looked back at some stories of that, at that time, the last big bombing like that.
That bombing was something, that wasn't the last big bombing, that was just the biggest bombing, about 120 people killed there.
And it was the exact same formula within the story that I read there, was that this was the biggest bombing they've seen in Iraq since, you know, in almost six weeks.
So this is, yes, this is a successful surge where every three weeks, every four weeks, and this is not counting the week by week thing, but every five or six weeks, 80, 120, 200 people are killed all in one go in the middle of the capital.
So this is the kind of successful surge we've had that Fred Kagan and, and Petraeus, of course, is the same guy, brought us.
And this is also, as you, as you well know, the same surge that Obama went over there and called an extraordinary achievement.
You know, before he was running for president, you know, he, he hailed our, our brave occupiers over there for the extraordinary achievement they've, you know, they have done.
And as I mentioned in my article, it was an extraordinary achievement.
It's an extraordinary achievement of PR because, you know, we know what they did by hook and crook, by bribing some of the people to quit.
And basically by just coming in really heavy on one side of a, of a sectarian civil war, they're on the side of the Shiites, and helped them finish their ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis in Baghdad and other areas.
They got the, the death count down from what, you know, what I say in my article was these sort of world historical levels they were at in 2000.
You know, death counts that no one had ever seen in any kind of city like that.
You know, there was 300, 400, 500, 600 people dying every week.
I mean, innocent people being killed every week, let's put it that way.
And they got them down to what do we have now?
Oh, gosh, you know, 40, 50 people being, innocent people being killed in sectarian warfare and by occupiers and by the Iraqi army and stuff like that.
Oh, you know, only six, you know, every week, week after week after week.
And this, you know, in the, in the sort of blood soaked economy of, of our militarist empire, this is, this is considered a success.
You know, it's only 50, 50, 60 innocent people being killed every week where none were being killed before.
That's a success if you get it down to it.
And I think what Kagan is being brought in to do is the same sort of thing.
What Petraeus wants to do and what Kagan wants to do and what Obama wants to do is, is just, and all they have to do to do what they want to is, is to knock off a little bit of the edge off the, off the headlines, you see.
If they can bring the death count in Afghanistan down just a little bit here and there, if they, or whatever, if they can massage the story in one way to make it look like, oh, things are moving forward, things are moving forward a little bit, even just a little bit.
See, all it takes is a little bit to, to blunt the always dull edge of the media in the first place.
Now, you know, things are so bad in Baghdad and Iraq in 2007, 2006, that even our, you know, the sleepwalkers in our media had to sit up and take notice.
Now, the same thing is kind of happening in Afghanistan right now.
As I mentioned in my article, we're almost in the same situation as we were when the surge was launched in Iraq, is that, you know, it's getting bad press, people are kind of sick of it.
All they ever hear is, you know, things are going bad, things are going wrong.
You know, it's apparent that they don't know what to do to, to solve, you know, what, you know, what they want to do.
And so now we've got the same team.
We've got the same team.
You know, Team Obama is Team Bush, which is why one could, could be and should be forgiven for making these Freudian slips.
You know, as we know, it's a great administration of continuity.
It's the same people.
Now we have Kagan, we have Petraeus.
We have McChrystal, who was, who ran the death squads in Iraq during the surge for Petraeus.
And he was in command, you know.
We have Robert Gates at the, at the Pentagon.
We have the exact same team we would have in place if John McCain and Sarah Palin had won in 2008, which was one reason why everyone said, you have to vote for Obama, and you have to support him now, because what?
If you don't, you'll get John McCain.
You'll get Sarah Palin.
Yeah.
And then what will you get?
You'll get a bunch of Bush regime retreads running the war machine.
Yeah.
That's what we got.
Yeah.
But the difference is, well, just like with the surge, PR.
PR, yeah.
It works just magnificently, doesn't it?
You add time to the Washington clock, add time to the American voters clock.
That's all you're doing.
Yeah.
Because the main point, I think, in Afghanistan, I know this is the main point in Iraq, and I believe it's the same point in Afghanistan, is to install a permanent military presence, you know.
Because this is part of the whole militarist agenda, and a lot of it was laid out by Kagan and all the other guys in the Project for the New American Century, which is only just one group, and only one offshoot of this bipartisan consensus.
You know, the Washington consensus that Andrew Bacevich has been talking about in a lot of his articles.
Some have been appearing on anti-war.
You know, you cannot be a power player in Washington.
You cannot be part of the game.
You cannot be part of the scene unless you sign up to this consensus, which is, you know, military intervention, as Andrew Bacevich says, it's a worldwide military presence, interventionism, and this whole idea that America must dominate the world.
And so to do this, they need permanent bases in Central Asia, they need permanent bases in the Middle East, and that's what they want to do, and that's what I think.
But to do that, they have to keep a certain level of good PR, as you say.
They can't go in and do what maybe they'd want to do.
I don't know if they want to do it or not.
They can't come in and do like they did in Vietnam.
They can't come in and just do massive bombing raids.
They can't drop napalm all over the place.
They can't actually kill right in front of your eyes three million people in just a few years, although they've killed a million in Iraq in about six or seven years, although they did a lot of that by inducing Iraqis to kill each other, which is always a cheaper thing to do.
But, you know, this is what they want to do.
They want to ensure this permanent military presence, which is just part of this overarching, I guess you want to call it agenda.
It's more like an unconscious drive of zombies or something to maintain this dominance that they feel is their right, which they feel, I don't know what they feel.
But somehow this is where they get their sense of self-worth from, and this is where they get their wealth and privilege from.
And so that's why you bring Kagan and Petraeus, and you bring the same team in to try to pull the same trick that they did in Iraq.
And, you know, it may work, who knows?
I don't know why not.
It seems like people can, well, the people between Canada and Mexico can be made to believe anything, man.
Well, of course, yeah.
I mean, yeah, that's why it's very sort of disheartening, because as you say, there is nothing, you know, nothing to make you think that it won't work, you know.
I mean, the only thing that might make it work is that if, you know, the Taliban just proved to be a tougher nut to crack than the Iraqi insurgents did, because they aren't so divided, you know.
There's not actually a huge civil war going on in Afghanistan, whereas in America during the surge, you know, they could take sides.
They could jump in there with the Shiites, and also being helped in that by Iran, you know, who called off some of their dogs in that.
And they could, you know, bribe some of the Sunnis to stand down, or bribe them to protect them or whatever.
But I don't know if, you know, there's different dynamics going on in Afghanistan.
But yes, there's nothing so far that would indicate that they can't pull the same trick of getting things off the news pages.
And also, this is something that, this is one thing that Arthur Silber used to talk about a lot when Obama was running.
It's the fact that Obama put Obama in the White House, but a Democrat in the White House who signs up to this whole agenda, because he wouldn't be in the White House if he didn't.
And what you do then is you disarm all the opposition, you see.
I mean, because what we have now is you have the Democrats.
It's in the Democrats' interest to downplay anything bad going on in Afghanistan, to make it look good, to make it look like a success.
And because the Republicans, of course, are adamant supporters of the militarist agenda, it's in their interest to make it look like things are going well.
Although they have to, at the moment, for partisan political purposes, they have to play a sort of fancy game.
They want to slam Obama, but only because he's not warlike enough, only because he's not doing enough.
So what you have now is at least under Bush, you had the Democrats who were at least nominally pretending to be anti-war, and so that would give that a little bit more of a voice.
I mean, you had, gosh, there was this Senator from Illinois who used to talk about, you know, the war, the wrong war, the bad war, the blah, blah, blah.
But now you don't have that anymore.
Now there's not even this nominal resistance or this nominal discussion or this nominal dissension in the national politics against perpetuating this war in Afghanistan.
It's just not there.
And that was one of the great dangers of electing someone like Obama was he would completely disarm what was left of any kind of institutional, mainstream opposition to this sort of thing, even if it was lip service, you know what I mean?
Sometimes if lip service is all you can get, it's better than nothing.
But now we don't even get that.
It's in the Democrats' interest to push the war, to make it look like the Obama surge is successful, and it's in the Republicans' interest to do it.
So who, what?
What does it come down to?
Well, it comes down to guys talking on the radio.
It comes down to, you know, blogs like anti-war.com.
But, you know, it's a very sort of bleak situation.
And I know you've been around for a long time.
You've been watching these things for years, and I know you must feel like I do.
It's like every time you reach a low point, you think, how can it get any more bleak?
How can it get worse?
But, you know, it does.
Yeah, it's crazy.
It's like people are getting reality or, let's see, the narrative that people believe in is further and further and further away from reality all the time.
You know, the madness, the real madness of 2002 and 2003 finally wore off in 2005, I guess, and now you're not automatically a fifth columnist on the side of the terrorists if you don't approve of George Bush, you know, at least by the beginning of 2006.
That was really where that pressure came from for the Baker report and all that that you're talking about there.
Yeah.
But it really did just take forever, and it seems like, I mean, I don't know.
I guess the way I interpret what you're saying is ultimately we'd be better if it was still George Bush right now without that 22nd Amendment and let Bush just stay the president.
Then at least everybody would still hate him.
And instead, I mean, the only reason I would prefer Obama to McCain is I'm afraid that McCain would try to get us into a war with Russia.
I think McCain is so ignorant and so arrogant that, you know, the worst sort of dangerous combination of, I mean, he's like George Bush, only madder and dumber, that guy.
And so that's not a partisan difference.
That's just a personal difference, you know.
I think at least Obama has the sense to keep us out of a tangle with Russia, I hope.
Well, who knows about that?
You know, they took a lot of, yeah, I mean, but you've got Joe Biden.
Joe Biden is just about as bad on the subject of Russia as McCain is.
Well, that's true, too.
But, yeah, I mean, if it had been Mitt Romney or, you know, your typical bland Republican pick-em-from-the-line-up there in power, then you're right.
We would still have an anti-war movement in this country.
And instead, we've got people talking about, yeah, you know, maybe we do need to help the Afghan women.
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, this is a huge thing.
And you and Antiwar have done a really good job on uncovering this, you know, so many of these people who were so adamant against the Bush war, these liberals, you know, yeah, that's exactly what to do.
Well, you know, yes, but there's a good point.
We do need to do this in Afghanistan.
We do need to blah, blah, blah, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Suddenly it's okay.
Suddenly there's some, you know, things to be said for military intervention and things like that.
So it's, again, only because someone on their side is doing it.
And it's, I mean, this is, I mean, it doesn't run through everyone, but you can, you know, you can see it all over the place.
You can see it in daily costs and all these other kinds of places.
Any place where serious progressives gather, you know, you'll have someone sticking up for that sort of thing.
And it's really a remarkable thing to see, you know.
Well, you know, there's one character on this planet that's as mean as the American Empire, and that's Mother Nature.
Right.
And she has just been whooping the ass of the poor people of Pakistan for the last couple of weeks with these floods.
Yeah, I know.
So here's where I'm going with this.
First of all, if you could just share with the audience what you've learned about just how bad these floods really are.
And then secondly, if you can talk about what you think this might mean for the future of the Zardari government there and America's, whatever you call it, alliance with the Pakistani army and the government of that country such as it is.
Yeah, well, I mean, of course, a disaster such as they have in Pakistan, you know, we should all know all the details because it should be 24-7 all over the news.
But as you say, you know, they've had these gigantic floods, these floods that are continuing.
And I think the last time I looked, they had 20 million people who were displaced by the flood with about 6 million children right now at risk of waterborne diseases, you know, because they're just stranded.
They're stranded in lots of places in the middle of nowhere.
The Guardian newspaper here has a feature in the middle of their page where they run this gigantic picture, you know, every day of something.
There's a picture of one of the flood plains in, you know, Pakistan.
There's a few little villages, a few houses standing in a few villages.
But, you know, it was a shot from a helicopter.
And for miles and miles, all you could see was water and flooded fields.
You know, these are people who can't even walk across the highway from the Superdome and get to another place, you know.
I mean, there's nowhere for them to go.
They're stranded out there.
So it's like there's 20 million people in that kind of situation.
You know, as I say, there's 6 or 7 million children now at risk of, you know, they're already getting this horrible watery diarrhea.
They're getting, you know, pneumonia.
Cholera is also a danger.
And until maybe just the last couple of days, the response of the world has been incredibly anemic, you know.
I mean, 20 million people in this strategic, you know, thing, a nation that we're told over and over is, you know, a strategic linchpin to the whole American strategy.
And for our national security, which is why we have to keep illegally bombing it with drone missiles fired from Nevada and Kansas or wherever they're fired from, you know, killing people in remote villages with them.
But, you know, the response has been so weak to it, you know.
I think the United States first came out with something like, oh, we'll give you $70 million or something like that.
Now, yesterday, the United States has been a little bit embarrassed into upping their ante because Saudi Arabia came out and said we're going to give $200 million or something.
So I think I read today that the Americans had to give a little bit more.
But, you know, as I said, I mentioned on the blog the other day, you could go days without hearing about this.
This is one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern history.
The UN chief Ban Ki-moon went down there and said, you know, it was the worst natural disaster he's ever seen.
You know, he's presided over the tsunami and Haiti and everything like that.
So, yeah, I mean, what it means politically or something like that.
Now, there have been some articles about that.
Some of the first articles I saw about it in American press dealt almost exclusively with, you know, bad foot in Pakistan.
What does this mean for the war in Afghanistan?
What does it mean for Obama?
You know, who's up, who's down?
Will the Republicans make A?
You know, it became some sort of political football.
But, I mean, of course, there are serious political ramifications coming forward.
I'm afraid it might mean an excuse for American intervention.
If the Zardari government cannot deliver the most basic life jackets and floatable thingies for people to rescue their drowning loved ones, this could be the kind of thing that, well, the Katrina effect, what happened to George Bush could happen to Zardari.
Only, as you're saying, this is millions of times worse here.
And then what I'm worried about is that if the government of Pakistan falls, is Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates going to leave it to the people of Pakistan to sort out their own affairs, or we're going to have Robert Kagan, fat-necked Fred's big, fat brother, and Michael O'Hanlon's plan from New York Times, September, October, I forget now, 2007.
Maybe we just need to do a full-scale invasion of Pakistan, seize their nuclear weapons, take control of their government, their population, do another one of these.
Convert them to Christianity.
Yeah, there you go.
Yeah, well, that's true.
I mean, I think the most, the greatest likely would be if the Zardari government falls.
I mean, the Zardari government is, you mentioned Bush and Katrina, the Zardari government is already much less popular than Bush was even at the time, at the time of Katrina.
I mean, he's a sort of a long-time corruptocrat.
I think the main thing probably what would happen if the Zardari government fell was that the military would step in and take over, in which case I think the United States would probably go for that.
You know, the Pakistan military, they've taken over several times before, and if it turns out the civilian government can't respond, then they would probably step in again.
But, no, it's a horrible situation.
Of course, you know, one group that is stepping in are the Islamic groups, the extremist Islamic groups, because a lot of these groups, you know, I read once in the New York Times, recently in the New York Times, something about, well, these Islamic groups are stepping in with their front, you know, with their social services front.
And, you know, I'm not taking up any Islamic extremist group.
I don't take up any extremist group anywhere, violence or something like that.
But a lot of these groups, it's just, you know, the social services they run and stuff is not the front for their military wing.
It's just another part of their whole organization.
And this is one reason why these organizations get so much support.
It's like the same thing with, you know, Hamas.
We hear, you know, years and years, Hamas is a horrible terrorist organization.
Well, they have carried out terrorist activities.
They've been, you know, the target of state terrorism themselves.
But the point is, you know, oh, well, gosh, these people in Gaza, these people in the Palestinians, they must be horrible because they support Hamas.
But one reason these groups get support is because part of their reason for being is providing these social services that the governments won't provide.
It's the same way with Sadr in Iraq.
You know, all we hear about is whatever their military wing happens to do.
We don't hear about the reason they get support in these communities is because they support the community.
And this is one thing that's happening in Pakistan.
And, again, you know, it's not trying to romanticize these people.
Sometimes some of these groups in Pakistan, they move in, they are helping the people.
They're also killing someone who doesn't want their help, you know, who won't accept their help and things like that.
I mean, it's not trying to sentimentalize anybody.
But it's just a question of, again, you said before, you know, as Americans never know the reality of anything that's going on.
All we hear are, oh, bad guys.
Now the bad guys are helping the poor, you know.
It just must be a front, you know.
But it's not just a front.
It's the same way that, I don't know, you didn't have to support horrible, heinous activities of the Soviet Union to not also say, well, you know, they had a great health care system, whatever, you know, people got sick, they got taken care of.
So this is one reason why these groups get support.
And, of course, what happens is since the Pakistan government can't really step in and do a lot of stuff, and one reason, of course, they can is they, you know, they get something like $10 billion a year in aid from the United States, but where does that go?
It goes into the military.
What are they doing with the military?
Well, when they're not trying to, you know, gin up a war with India or vice versa, you know, they're out killing their own people, you know, killing the Taliban, the Pakistan Taliban, at the behest of the United States.
Yeah, and supporting the Afghan Taliban against America and Afghanistan.
Yeah, well, I mean, this is what I mean.
This is like, so, I mean, there's all kinds of things that will, you know, shake out of this.
Well, you know, my thing is, Chris, that I'm not for having an American government at all, but there's like the pretty easy counterfactual to our current situation, and this goes to the heart of the propaganda line that the American people are fed.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't believe that anybody at the Project for a New American Century ever meant to help anybody but themselves, or, you know, spread democracy through the world or whatever, but that's what they claim, and that's what a lot of American people believe, is that just like the Navy commercial, we're a force for good, and it just seems to me like, wow, if we weren't waging war in five countries right now, and our Navy really was sort of a global FEMA that would send in a Chinook full of meals ready to eat and life jackets for people in flood emergencies, that would be a much better way, obviously, to spend our resources and convince people that their societies ought to be a lot like ours, if here come the heroic Americans over the horizon, come with their Chinooks to save our lives.
But we don't do that.
We bring our Chinooks to tear their lives apart, and it's not like people in Pakistan don't notice the difference, you know?
Well, absolutely.
Absolutely.
This is a very good point that I've seen in many places, is that just because the American people don't know what's being done in their name, the people it's being done to know what's being done, you see.
I mean, it's true.
Yes, of course.
I mean, if America had a non-militarized force like that, the trillion dollars we've spent killing over a million people, a million Muslims in the last 10 years, could come in there and help rebuild and take care of the Pakistanis.
And as you say, that would have been a thousand times easier and better and more secure way to spread American influence.
Absolutely.
But of course, as you know, as you said, and as you pointed out, it's not about the power of example.
It's not about, which is what John Quincy Adams said, that the United States should be.
We should stay within our borders and build our own society the best that we can build it, and be an example to the nations.
Not going abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
It's the same kind of situation.
But as you said, these people, these military and all these people, they're not worried about spreading American influence.
They don't want to make America the example of America.
What they want is American dominance and dominance by an America that is dominated by them, you see.
It's the economics of empire, really, that are so corrupting here.
Because what you have, like you said before, with Fred Kagan and the rest of these guys, it's all about that sweet contract.
And of course, they're going to see the world, they're going to try to call themselves honest to themselves, and they're going to see the world in ways that benefit them.
But the problem that I'm dealing with here is I'm trying to guess at the next 100 years and 200 years and the history of the world after this.
I mean, after all, this is our one big spaceship we're sharing here, man.
And there's a long-term future for all these different civilizations and populations and individuals and people to live within.
And we've got to figure out a way to live together, man.
And instead, we have the most, first of all, the worst people in our whole society chasing the most narrow and short-term interests at the expense of the danger of creating a real world war.
And, you know, as I've been talking about with different guests all through the show today, you know, there are vested interests, namely the neoconservatives and Osama bin Laden, who each want the people of Earth to believe that the war is between Islam and the West.
And that's what's best for the worst of both sides.
And there are uncounted lives hanging in the balance still based on this madness, these lies.
Well, I mean, absolutely, you know.
I mean, you just hit, that's the crux of the whole thing.
If they want it to be seen that way, the extremists on both sides want it to be seen that way.
That's why this thing about the mosque, ground zero mosque, you know, it's a godsend for both sides like that.
You know, yes, it's true.
I mean, because that's what people aren't cognizant of, is that all these things are not just current events, you know.
They're not just passing things.
They are specific steps along a road.
And which, you know, which road are we going to take for the future of humanity, you know, and for the planet, you know.
You know, which road are we going to take?
And I think what we've seen, you know, in the last few years is that, you know, the United States especially has taken, has gone down so many wrong turns at every fork in the road that, you know, I feel like that we can't even see the road back to the road, back to the road that would take us back to the broad highway, you know.
And...
We need a clean break, man.
Yeah.
We need a new strategy for securing the realm.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I think, you know, I think if you talk to Fred Kagan and some of those, they may have some of those in their back pocket somewhere, you know.
Yeah.
Paging David Wilmser.
Yeah.
Come on, yeah.
Come back.
All is forgiven.
I mean, he's probably working for the Obama administration somewhere anyway.
Right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's...
What can I say?
It's not good, you know.
I mean, it's like the old Dylan song, you know.
It's not dark yet, but it's getting there.
Right.
The daylight, man, always messes with my perception.
Drives me mad.
All right.
Well, Chris, I can't tell you how much I appreciate you writing what you do on this blog.
It's some of the most powerful stuff on the Internet.
And, you know, anybody can tell by your comment section how diehard and devoted your fans are, and for very good reason.
I sure hope that everybody listening will check out your blog, chris-floyd.com.
It's all the most important topics and with real wisdom and insight behind it, the kind of thing you don't get in too many blogs around the place.
So thanks again, Chris.
I appreciate it.
All right.
Well, thank you very much for that.
Thank you.
