Since I've been so sternly reprimanded by one of the exceptions to my generalization, allow me to update my previous assertion: Those who support Bush are those who believe that all of existence begins and ends with their tax return, the Bible, or their tax return and the Bible. Addendum: Except for StupidMoniker, who doesn't have a job and hasn't read the Bible in awhile.
Why would you be offended? Nobody called you a greedy, selfish, religious nutjob. I was only pointing out your ignorance of the demographics of Bush supporters. I hardly think I am the only exception to your generalization among the approx. 50% of the population that supports our president.
I believe you give somebody the benefit of the doubt only if you inherently trust them. Since I inherently trust not one single politician on planet Earth, I never give any of them the benefit of the doubt.
Since I'm the one who used the phrase, and ironically in a thread i started precisely so I could air some doubts, let me see if I can enlighten you: your arguement rests on some fairly broad conclusions: It's way too early to close the book and the search for WMDs. in fact, there was a report on CNN yesterday that it may be years before we know for sure what was going on. but this much bears repeating. there has never, never, never been any doubt that Saddam had WMDs. The question post-war has always been what happened to them, and when, and the real, non-ideologically spun answer to this is "we don't know." i understand some of you may need a more precise answer before november, but those of us who still support the war are content to wait for all the facts. ironic that those who railed against the 12 year "rush-to-war" are now rushing to judgement on this issue. to be simplistic about it, they went after the "evil-doers." read Buck's thread about the response of many branches of our government, military, and intelligence services prior to 9/11 to understand the level of their achievement here. Reagan, GHWB, and Clinton, all failed to protect this country, but when faced with the true magnitude of the threat, W made the hard decisions, often in the face of significant opposition, both at home and abroad. i respect that kind of resolve so I'm willing to "give him the benefit of the doubt" while we wait for the full story on WMDs. i reserve the right to revoke that respect, and with it my vote, should it be "proved" he lied. your assertions to the contrary, that proof does not now exist. my belief in this country, patriotism if you will, lies less in the acts of her government, and more in the acts of her people. take a look at what our soldiers are doing in Iraq- if that doesn't make you proud to be an american, then nothing will. fortunately, there's a place for people who are unable to recognize and admire the incredible efforts that the men and women of our armed forces are making in Iraq and Afghanistan. it's called "Academia."
You know Bush did not have much of a track record in public service prior to running for President. Voters had to make assumptions about how Bush would perform his duties as President. Now he has three years of high profile public service. I would hope that these three years are an important basis on which voters make their decisions. To say that we should not concentrate on what GWB did in his first three years as President is disingenuous. The bottonline is the voters need to hold GWB accountable for any and all mistakes he has made as President. Without doing so, the electorate for example is telling Bush that the problems wrt Iraq War were not of his doing and that we heartly welcome four more years of a nonrepentent Bush. Do you seriously want to see another Iraq type war in Bush's second term? Bush has got his sights set on Iran and North Korea, as public enemy #2 and #3.
