How much of this is just political...Bush is doing it, so I don't like it? Recent polls seem to indicate that's a lot of it. I saw a poll on CNN yesterday talking about how partisan the opposition to this war is. What do you think? (disclaimer -- i'm not saying that if you don't like bush you're necessarily against the war...conversely, i'm not saying if you do like bush you're necessarily for the war)
I think Bush and his administration are currently defined by this war, so if you were to find anyone who was pro-Bush/anti-war (or vice versa), you'd be finding a statistical flyer.
Ill say it for you because I believe it has some validity to it. Last night, Michael Moore said, what I felt, is representative of how a great many number of Dems feel: "We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts". Mr. Moore, in that statement, discredited Bush's legitimacy as a President and therefore, we more than likely always discredit anything he has ever done has a President (i.e. some Dems/Liberals are upset that Bush is President and will never support him or his actions no matter what because they feel he is not legitimate). To clarify, I am not linking all Dems and/or Liberals with this statment or saying its representative of their thoughts. However, no doubt, alot of them feel this way.
Well seeing as how I'm not a Democrat...and prefered him top Gore in the last election ( albeit as the better of two evils-didn't really like either one) I would have to say that it's not at all political for me...Just like the fact that I thought Clinton should have been booted out, nor for the sex ( none of my business, but because he broke the law as the head of the judicial system, even though I thought he was doing a good job otherwise )wasn't political.
I don't really consider myself a conservative since I voted for Gore, but I do have some leanings toward the conservative side, moreso than the liberal side. Personally, I cringe everytime Dubya gets up and speaks. I also would love to see us just keep to ourselves and not have to step into every situation out there in the world. However, Bush is the President of this country, for better or worse, and I feel that we should have a united country. Thank God, I wasn't born when the Vietnam War was really going on (sorry but being on this planet in its last two years doesn't count).
Another thing...to be completely unbiased, shouldn't it also be asked how many in favour happen to also be Bush supporters? I read your disclaimer, but it does leave opne for interpretation the possibility that everyone against the war doesn't like Bush, so shouldn't we address the converse possibility?
Confused..the title of the thread is the only thing other than the disclaimer that addresses which side of the issue you are addressing, and the disclaimer doesn't address the opposite side to the title/question. Do you see what I mean? ( Am not assuming it was intentional, am asking if you see it now upon reflection)..Might not Those For and Against have been the only wat to not be biased, given the post that follows?
i do..i totally see what you mean...argue this whichever way you want...either side is fair game. i would change the title, if you'd like, but i don't know how. and honestly, i'm not that concerned with it.
One last thing, and in the spirit of the common ground we so recently found, you being a lawyer might make a review of this discussion interesting... My basis for feeling that Clinton should have been removed is as follows: Our judicial system is an evidenciary one, whose basis is testimony. To further that system we administer an oath, and assume that said oath carries leagal weight, to wit; perjury is a serious crime. When the head of that legal system lies under oath, ie commits perjury, and does so to further his own ends ( in this case to protect himself from accusations of similar actions by saying they never took place) to NOT eject him from his position as Head of State, let alone charge him with the crime of prjury is to state that either perjury isn't serious, or that some are immune to the law. Either one undermines the entire basis for the legal system in place. That is my position. What is yours, of the situation, and of my opinion. It is relevant here because A) I want to talk about it and B) I think it shows how I make decisions, ie non-partisan, but based on the ethical, practical, and moral basis of the situation as I see it.
i agree entirely...what good is a judicial system if we excuse lies? if the idea is to make sure the factual truths are submitted to a jury, how can you overlook lies? we're certainly not overlooking the way DNA evidence "lies" to a jury when done in a shoddy fashion in an HPD laboratory. and we shouldn't!!! in addition...there was a ton of congressional testimony about military personnel who were prosecuted, court-martialed and served time for the exact same type of lie in similar cases. but we make exceptions for the commander in chief...why? because we want to hold him to a lesser standard? seems to me we'd want to hold those in power to a higher standard. thus, impeachment and removal from office.
i thought of you this weekend when i read these polls... i guess personal testimonials don't work real well for this analysis. the polls tend to indicate that only 20% or so of the country is saying they're against the war at this point...and of that number, like 85% identify themselves as Democrats.
I have been always said 'there is no such thing as pro-war--noone wants war' and still feel that way. The whole divide in the country is partisan. And it is my opinion that the left side of the dividing line is often being childish. I truly believe that if we had continued on with the inspections and found the WMD's and it was the whole world versus Iraq the ant-war crowd would still be acting the same way. They would still trash Bush. They would still divide the country with anger and dissent. If there was a peaceful alternative I would have supported it. I still want peace, but this is a necessity and eventually all of the anti-war people on this board (with the exception of the no war no matter what fruitloops) will 'see the light'. As soon as Saddam shows his animalistic tendencies against coalition forces the tide will turn. What's left of the protesters will be a group of insignificant hippies and long hairs that cannot make a difference no matter what if only because of their anti-social and pathetic physical appearance. ie-you cannot be taken seriously in a board meeting if you go in your jammies.
I find it hard to credit a court which has convicted anyone of perjury following the Clinton fiasco. Where is the rule of precedent? This still amazes me... Asls, do you get/agree with my point about my position on this war? I have no bias that I know of..I was not biased politically ( have no real affiliation, and favoured Bush over Gore), idealogically ( supported 1st Gulf War) or personally ( was in favour of ousting Clinton despite liking him as President)...Can you see that I make my decisions based on actual interpretation of the situation, and supported by my studies in this field, as opposed of in the reflection of some bias? I am asking this of someone who I ackowledge disagrees with me on this, but who has, unlike some in similar circumstances, shown the ability to distinguish between thought and repetition of rhetoric.
I disagree...pro-war does not indicate a long standing prejudice, but, in the circumstance, just indicates favouring war in this case, irrespective of rationale..I was pro ( ie. for) the 1st war...Interpreting that as insulting is a mistake, IMO. It's like saying you're not pro-abortion, you just think people should be allowed to have one..When the issue is whether or not abortions should be legal, you either are or are not pro ( ie. for) them. The rest is splitting hairs for the purpose of ratinalization. When the issue is whether or not we should go to war in this situation, you are either for (pro) or against it...To say you're not for ( pro) it, but support it in this case makes no sense...If you are against it, you couldn't support it in this case.
I'm against the war because I don't feel threatened by Saddam. That being said, this war is not a black and white issue, so I think for some people it becomes partisan. I think most people would agree that Saddam's time has run out and it would be best if he was removed. The problem is removing him will inevitably cause backlash with the Islam fanaticals, giving them more fuel to promote American hatred. So the question you have to ask yourself is which is the bigger risk, having Saddam remain in power, or the dealing with the ramifications of removing him. I personally believe the latter is the bigger risk. For most people, their feeling about Bush helps them answer their question. People who thinks he's competent are willing to trust that the current policy of war is correct, people who don't trust his judgement tend to feel the war is misguided.
