Of course he is worthy, just not a milestone. You don't really want me to post the casualties daily do you? I won't post them again until 3,000 (mid summer, probably). Nope, the moderates have become critical of Bush as well as the liberals, and many conservatives are starting to agree that the war continues to be badly managed. You know, SF, I never mentioned anything about Bush or politics in my post. Just factual statistics and stating the obvious. This occupation shows no signs of improving or ending. The republicans are running for president and will have to wear this millstone into 2008. I do not question his sincerity or his patriotism. Only his competence, judgement, and ideology. Bush is not evil, he is simply a poor president. I'm a registered independent. But if you imagine that Democrats are somehow unpatriotic just because you disagree with them, then you would be quite wrong. Many people feel that George Bush has cost this country a great fortune, our international respect, our military readiness, and our moral authority.
In a word: Partisanship. It dicatates whether the administration is hailed or reviled. That's just the way it is. The war in Iraq was necessary. It was not based on lies and Saddam's minions are patiently waiting for Bush to go so they can dig up their chemical and biological weaponry from the vast Iraqi desertland and have the rest returned from Syria and Jordan. If Independents or Moderates or Liberals want to try and paint the picture differently, it's because they have an axe to grind against Bush. The barrage of anti-Bush rhetoric in the media has worn down fence sitters and likely we'll be faced with a Kerry or Hillary Clinton presidency. I shudder at the thought, but it will certainly make FSA interesting...If we survive.
I think it is much more complex than that. I'm not a member of a political party. What I want is capable managment of the country and I have voted both republican and democrat in order to get that. I abhor partisan politics and they do not enter into my decisions. Of course it is impossible for you to document this fantasy. Almost everyone realizes that the war was unwise and unnecessary. Even those that still imagine there is some prize to be won by patrolling Iraq forever . If people have an ax to grin against Bush, it is as a result of Bush's own actions and policies. That is the way politics has always worked, amigo. You think I'm Sourdough? You actually think I give a rat's ass about media spin? I've watched world events pretty closely for decades and I know how to find information, assess it and draw my own conclusions, thank you. I do think both parties will move to the middle and run with moderates. Kerry is a northeastern liberal, the Dems won't try that again. Hillary is a moderate, but unelectable as a woman. Unless an unknown democrat comes out of the woodwork (ie. Carter, Bill Clinton), I think this one will go to McCain or Giuliani, either of whom could pull the middle almost as well as Hillary. I appreciate your views, SF. You rarely get involved in a debate.
Good points all, but my comments weren't directed at you, rather at the majority of voters who are swayed by their party affiliation or what they hear and read from the media. You have Democrats who hate Bush only because he is a Republican and a large number of those still haven't gotten over the Gore defeat (Rex). Other, dare I say ignorant, voters go with the prevailing winds of public opinion and if they don't watch Fox news (to hear both sides) they have been inundated with anti administration propoganda. If it's on the news, it must be true. Right? As far as the WMDs, it's not a fantasy but it is an opinion. No reasonable mind could conclude that Saddam did not have massive stockpiles of WMDs and what happened to them is a mystery. My personal theory is as stated above. I support Bush because I believe he is a good man, a smart man and a man who sincerely believes he's doing all he can to protect this country and it's people from harm. Perhaps at the expense of those who are unwilling to care for themselves but, IMO, that's an acceptable trade off. Also, and this may be an antiquated view, but when the country is at war, you support it and you don't give comfort to the enemy, regardless of your opinion on the merits. Most of the most vocal complainers have never served in the military and have no clue as to how important the unqualified support of the folks back home is. By the way, watch out for Hillary. She has shrewdly staked out a moderate position and will be a force in the next election. Better her than Kerry, for sure.
We weren't spreading democracy in Korea and Vietnam. It was to prevent the communists from taking over whole continents. And we were winning the war on the ground and losing it back home. That's the only likeness to Nam.
That's not to say that we weren't trying. What I wrote was pretty much verbatim from LBJ. That's hilarious.
Well, the political environment and the anti-war movement today aren't nearly what they were back during the Vietnam War. I wouldn't say that the war in Iraq has reached the same levels as the Vietnam War. But I guess there is still hope for you peaceniks. :yelwink2:
Pretty sickening thread.... Using death toll numbers for political agendas and provoking discussion. Red, this almosts puts you on a level playing field with Rex.
