It's not defending Saddam to point out that crime and security of everyday life in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam. That's just the truth. If you call telling the truth defending Saddam then what YOU saying about Saddam? I have said before that conditions involving crime and lawlessness have escalated in Iraq post Saddam. I have also said that I believe the Iraqis have a chance at real freedom, and if they get that the temporary pains felt by the lawlessness will hopefully have been a welcome sacrifice. Presenting the whole issue, including some negatives about the invasion, regardless of how temporary is in no way supporting Saddam. It is looking at all the facts involved and assessing the situation as accurately as possible.
I could tell it did. I'm not suggesting an abuse of power Brian, but when a mod says 'you've got to be ****ing kidding me' I know it's an argument I can't win. That's why I was out. I'm back cause your latest post sounds like you want to talk. I wasn't ever suggesting you were what's wrong with the forum. I said what I said because I believe when one side assumes the other hates the opposition enough to enjoy a terrorist attack or high unemployment it's very difficult to have a rational debate. It also presumes, as I believe you did, that continued support of one ideology over another is mindless rather than considered. I'm partisan just like you, but just like you I still think for myself. This isn't a football game to me. I care what happens to this country. If you want to call me dishonest, I can't prove I'm not. I can only tell you I'm being sincere. I disagree with most planks in any Republican platform. That is true. There are several I understand and respect, as in abortion, affirmative action, trade and others, even if I don't agree with them. And I believe we can have reasonable disagreements on these fronts without mindlessly sniping at each other. If you've read my posts you might notice I don't go in for every Dem argument. I've actually never suggested here that Iraq had a single thing to do with oil or with Halliburton. I've even disagreed with those who've said those were our primary motivations there. I never have liked Bush. You're right about that. Beyond everything else I've said in this thread I carry with me at least a slight prejudice against children of privilege -- especially ones who employ that privilege to (IMO of course) aid the privileged at the expense of the less privileged. Some of my dislike for Bush is personal, yes. But I am being sincere when I say that it was a combination of what I consider to be a dangerously arrogant policy coupled with a careful campaign to paint dissenters as traitors that made me hate him. If you don't believe me, you just don't. I don't like being called a liar when I'm not lying, but around these parts at least I guess I'm used to it.
Well, I'm called a liberal Bush hater in here with regularity, and I supported him in the last election. So...obviously...for some the point Batman made is not only valid, it's supported by evidence.
I know you;re joking, but I do believe it says a lot about the contemporary political climate that it is generally believed that, if I critcize Bush or the war, I must have been against him from the get go. I am not singling anyone out here, or even talking just about me: I think it somewhat likely that it would be assumed I supported Bush if I supported the war, though not as much. But it has been assumed of me, in here, so often that I am a card carrying Democrat who has always hated Bush...it never seems to occur to people that the war might just be evaluated as a negative on it's own merits, without some political agenda.
No I agree, some of the most conservative Catholics I know are not in favor of this move, people you would never call liberal, heck they make W. look like a rainbow parade. Me, I'm on the fence. Its just not an easy question, did you get that link I emailed you a while back?
The strange thing is that I'm an avid hater of this administration. I've never hated Bush, though. Anyway I was moderately displeased with the way things were going until 9/11. After that I thought Bush did a great job. He didn't fly off the handle and attack before the facts were in. He waited, gathered info, gave the taliban a chance to hand Bin Laden over, and then went in with full international support. I honestly don't think Gore would have/could have done that. I think Gore would have been called weak, seen as weak, or cowardly unless he attacked right away. I was actually happy that Bush was in office, and pleased with how he handled things. There were minor glitches such as using the word 'crusade' etc. Bush also had the first speaker at the memorial service an Imam from the Islamic faith, and I was pleased at that. Iraq could've had me actually admiring Bush for his statesmanship. If he had gone to the UN delivered his tough talking speach and gotten the inspectors in, and stayed on the U.N's case to make sure that measures were strict and that the inspections carried weight behind them, I would have been amazed. That would've been real leadership, and brilliant statesmanship. However, it seemed to me that any dealings with the UN were just a pretext and Bush wasn't really interested in peace. Things have slid further and further downhill since then. That was my impression of Bush from start to finish.
For the record, if it starting raining blowjobs I would switch from hating GWB to merely disliking him.
Everybody knows that Bush is lagging behind Clinton in blowJob growth. In fact, he might be the first president to have lost blowjobs since Herbert Hoover. (not withstanding how sucky Hoover was -- triple metaphor score for me!)
interestingly, at least 7 posters have voted for option 2. i'm curious, assuming they're willing fess up, and assuming they're actually serious, whether anyone who chose that option would care to elaborate on why?
I did not vote but ... You remember how much the right wing wackos hated Clinton for the get go? I suspect that these people would have voted for Dole no matter the circumstances.
I voted #2. I misinterpreted the poll. On first reading (which is all I gave it, since I was at work), I didn't pick up on the permanence implied in the options. Other people have expressed my opinions in their posts, so I'll go to bed now.
I guess some backslapping, hedonistic liberals would rather have their heads cut off then stand to live another day with assured protection, rights and freedoms under President Bush... Long live 4 more years baby!!!
I voted for number 2, I fully expect that's what will happen since Bush will continue to f&*(& the next 6th month, and atleast with Kerry in office, we have a chance (a small one since Kerry isn't that great either) of turning this thing around. The first choice just isn't possible or realistic, it's like one those free questions on the SAT that you crossed out
Pretty much ditto for me. I was actually prepared to sign up for the military after 9/11. I was thrilled with the way we went after the Taliban and did not begin to rethink that until Bush started snubbing the world in order to attack Iraq.
for those of you who think in this poll i perhaps over-estimated the degree of bush hatred, William Raspberry makes an interesting point in an oped on MM's Magnum opus. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10713-2004Jun27.html -- But why did the mostly liberal crowd at last week's Washington premiere -- people who like to think of themselves as thoughtful and fair-minded -- applaud so unrestrainedly? They applauded, I suspect, for much the same reason so many members of the black Christian middle-class applaud the harangues of Black Muslim minister Louis Farrakhan. Some of his facts may be wrong and some of his connections strained, but his attitude is right. What's more, he'll say in plain language what nice, educated people cannot bring themselves to say: The man is a devil.
The Bush administration is far more dangerous to America and the world than unstable Iraq and Afghanistan. Option B. But don't kid yourselves. While Bush is in power, Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to be in shambles. Keep in mind that Al Queda has endorsed Bush for president. That should tell you something.
