The antiwar people were simply anti-war, and rigidly against the concept of balancing war-agression with a strong war-deterrent or capability. The thought was that if we unilaterally disarmed, the rest of mankind would do likewise.

Another more cogent and realistic part of the argument was that if you give a big bunch of power or money to a big centralized government, it will get stolen or mis-used, or in the case of war, good people will get hurt.

So in sneak the anti-BUSH and anti-REPUBLICAN stealth operatives. They take over, and seem like good, rabid, and vocal ANTIWAR folks.

When their guy wins, they melt away, leaving antiwar folks mumbling, “What does ‘co-opted’ mean?” Where IS everybody? What happened?

Now, to let us folks (most conservatives) back under your tent, you’ll have to stop calling us names. When you yell “NEOCON”, you don’t hurt us; you hurt YOUR ability to differentiate between the good and bad parts of a previous administration, and you can’t understand how some of us supported Bush, and yet criticize honestly much of the same things that you criticize.

Quit using “Al Gore” math (Instead of ocean will rise 22 centimeters (8 inches), says “23 feet”. Instead of earth core temp 5,700, says “millions and millions of degrees”. Instead of some of the climate hoax email was within the last 2 months, says “It’s all over 10 years old and is irrelevant to the current discussion”.)

Instead of lies couched as absolutes and snarky jokes, tell me percentages. I say Bush was 40% good. If you start telling me 100%, either way, I start discounting the rest of what you have to say.

If you use the same snarky exaggeration to describe any of the other neocon/republican/conservative icons or stars, you hurt your antiwar agenda, and you declare me, unnecessarily, as your political enemy.