With regard to the respect the President is due and Crawford. There were some counter protestors who have a house on a corner in Crawford with a few protestors claiming to support the war in Iraq. At the actual Camp Casey, a couple of miles from the the center of town, there were about 10 counter protestors in the afternoon. I was struck by their signs. One said: "They were all volunteers" This particularly aggravated the Gold Star Parents, i.e., those whose relatives died. The other signs mostly said "We support the President" or "We support President Bush". It sort of seemed wierd that they didn't have their usual "We support the troops" signs. They weren't even for the most part supporting the War in Iraq. With the impeaching of Clinton we saw how much the Republicans and conservatives respect the presidency,so it is laughable for any type of Republican or conservative to claim this.
When I grew up presidents actually respected the ideals and principles this nation was founded on. There is a difference between being dishonest about how much programs will help various interest groups, and lying about a war, and promoting people who made mistakes that cost U.S. troops their lives instead of firing them. Add to that a President that promotes people who try and legally justify torture.
I'm waiting for a truly OBJECTIVE report of this event.... Can't you see that the last five letters of the posters pseudonym spell "L-Y-N-C-H"
I see it as quite the opposite. In the past, people held the president accountable for every action he took, which is the way it should be. It did not matter what party you supported. Bottom line, the President knew that he couldn't jack around with the American public. A good comparison with Bush is LBJ. Bush got us into Iraq whereas LBJ oversaw the mass escalation of Vietnam. Bush won reelection while LBJ didn't have the courage to run for reelection. Hell, LBJ couldn't even step out of the White House towards the end of his Presidency fearing he would get shot. And mind you that LBJ in his first full term was ten times the President GWB was. Similarly, in today's America, I do not think Nixon would have had to resign. Along the same lines, there was no way Clinton would have left office spot free in the 1960's and 1970's. Just my opinion I guess
I'm sure some of the royal apologists said the same thing about the king of England on the eve of the American revolution.
Thanks. I liked yours as well. We are old enough to have seen more of an "arc" of recent American History. Must seem like ancient history to some of these folks. The only thing I might have disagreed with you about, I think, is that LBJ didn't have the courage to run for a second term. I've always thought it took courage to do what he did, for a man who's whole life was as immersed in politics as long as his was, and at the highest level of power and influence. Keep D&D Civil!!
*sigh* Respect does not mean "agree with all the policies of and express no dissent with." There is a medium between extremes. Many who post here don't seem to be aware of that, or they just intentionally ignore it because they get off on extremes. One can respectfully say "I disagree with the president on the following issues and here's why." One doesn't have to say the president is evil, a terrorist, murderer, liar, b*stard, etc in order to express disagreement. I disagree with many positions of our current president myself. I'm against the death penalty, I'm against MFN trading status for China and other nations without basic human rights for their citizens. I was opposed to NAFTA, opposed to Alan Greenspan and his Fed regime, and opposed to the campaign finance "reform" bill that he signed, just to name a few. But amazingly I can say all that without venomous personal insults and implications that the president is stupid or heartless. On the contrary, I think what many people hate about President Bush is that he's someone who sticks to his guns and doesn't just go whichever the current political wind is blowing like Clinton, Bush 1, and Reagan did. GW Bush is the first president since Carter with the balls to go against political winds when his convictions lead him to. And he managed to one-up Carter, because he got re-elected. With MORE votes than he got the first time. So I have tremendous personal respect for this president, even when I disagree with him. I do not just "swallow the crap from GWB" as one poster said, I take each issue as it comes, and form views the best that I can. And I am honest and humble enough to admit when I don't know what the solution to a particular issue is. I am not arrogant enough to assume I know the amazing amount of complicated details of war and foreign policy. I never jumped on Clinton for his policies in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. I knew even less then about global conflicts, but I have tried to learn about things the best I can in my short years on the planet, but it's tough when pretty much every news source has its own agenda, so it's hard to know who to trust for presenting the facts of events that happen even in our own country, much less the other side of the world. I don't expect anything I say to change anything people do, there are those on both sides of the political spectrum who are hell-bent on playing personal insult politics and don't understand the concept of respectful dissent. Hopefully I have atleast made my perspective a little clearer though. If not, then I give up. Carry on.
The reasons for the war in Iraq have been clearly stated over and over again by the president and other members of the government, if these are the parents of soldiers and they don't even know the reason for the war in Iraq, then they are not paying any attention and are certainly not doing the memory of their children any good. You can not be serious. Thus, you must be a troll.
Of course I'm serious. What part of what I said do you dispute? Regardless of whether you agree with the reasons for war in Iraq, parents of soldiers not being aware of what they are would be pretty ludicrous.
Talk about low class.. Crikey her mom just had a stroke. You might not agree with her protest but at least be considerate of her family tragedy. Or do you not believe in family values?
But you're missing the whole point of our political and military command structure. You're right the troops don't get to pick and choose when and where they fight because our military is under the command of civillian politicians. As civillian politicians it is totally within our rights and the Constitutinally proscribed to antagonize the President through peaceful protests wherever he is. Also as a matter of showing respect to our Presidents its a myth to believe that somehow we show less respect now than we did in the past. More than a 100 years ago people publically accusd Presidents of fathering children out of wedlock, being drunkards, w**** mongers and outright traitors. The main difference is that now we have more media to hear about it.
