I've looked at W from both sides now...

[portnoise]

I know there are a lot of political-baiting threads going on these days... it's only natural. The stuff going on in Washington is polarizing, to say the least. And while we know that lots of us can verbalize our own ideas, but I wonder whether we can understand the other side. So here's a question:

To those on the right, why do you think so many people (disagree with / hate / won't give the benefit of the doubt to) Bush so vehemently?

To those on the left, why do you think so many people (agree with / love / will give the benefit of the doubt to) Bush so vehemently?

Let's try to stay away from, y'know, namecalling, comments about people's lineage, birth defects, sexual practices, overarching stereotypes, etc. :) Really--why are there so many people on the other side?

[sachmo71]

This thread is is all about love.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Let's try to stay away from, y'know, namecalling, comments about people's lineage, birth defects, sexual practices, overarching stereotypes, etc. :) Really--why are there so many people on the other side? Hmm ... if I take this question (which seems to be a fair enough question, albeit one that I believe will quickly head into predictable territory) at face value, it's going to be tough to answer honestly it without what someone is sure to interpret as "namecalling". But ... you asked.

To those on the right, why do you think so many people (disagree with / hate / won't give the benefit of the doubt to) Bush so vehemently? Because there is apparently no shortage of people in this country who do not possess the ability to make correct judgements on some situations.

I won't begin to try (here in this thread) to explain why I believe those shortfalls exist or anything like that. But I believe that's the bottom line answer to your "why" question -- there's people who simply don't make good judgements.

[QuikSand]

I think that most of the Bush-bashers find that GWB represents most things that they dislike about the GOP. He's a silver-spooned child of social and political privilege, he's viewed as having ties to big corporations (big oil especially), he's seen as broadly pandering to the religious right, and he's seen as having been dodgy about his own past and any hypocrisy it might raise. Then, add in the perception that he's really not that bright (especially among the literati liberals) -- and those who oppose the Republican party have an all-purpose subject of scorn and ridicule in him - he fits the bill perfectly.

Among true liberal friends of mine, the thing they hate the most about GWB is that he is an idiot (I'm paraphrasing). On down the list of greivances are things like his war/foreign policy, environmental policy, judicial appointments, and so forth -- things that conceivably matter more. They are far more pissed off that he can't pronounce "Abu Ghraib" than that he might have fostered its environment.

I think that the overwhelming opposition to him personally actually cultivates the feelings of his defenders. I believe that many of the GWB defenders/apologists out there are bolstered in part by the way he has drawn such scorn - rallying around him, in a manner of speaking.


I think the best and most obvious parallel is Bill Clinton. Actual policies aside, Bill Clinton became a lightning rod for many who oppose the Democratic party on more personal grounds -- his incessant lying (or half-truths) and his philandering ways became a reason why he couldn't govern, to many. In response, many within the Democratic party rallied around Clinton, and began to argue that such "character" issues weren't that important.


Overall, I think it's largely a case of people building the arguments to fit their pre-determined feelings. Many people who defended or attacked Clinton on character issues now more or less find themselves on the opposite side of that reasoning, now that the other party is in office and the incumbent has some potential vulnerabilities in that regard.

[randal7]

I think Bush's open Christianity is also a big cause for scorn from the other side, both from the "intellectual elite" who are too "smart" to believe in God and the hardcore pro-abortion crowd who cannot tolerate the position that a fetus is a person (and understandably so, given the numbers we abort every day). While small, these groups are very vocal and overrepresented in the media.

R

[Maple Leafs]

I think you can trace it back to Clinton.

US politics has always been a dirty business, but the Clinton years took things to a new level. The Republicans were so vicious in their pursuit of Clinton that I think it did long-term damage to how those on the left viewed politics. I think a lot of folks on the left of the spectrum, subconsciously or otherwise, saw what happened to Clinton and decided "OK, if that's how we're going to play, we're going to do the same to their next president."

So Bush had that one big strike against him from the start. The election fiasco was strike two, so Bush was in a deep hole before he ever really took over power. From there, the general arrogance of his adminstration has been strike three, and now it's just a no-holds-barred pissing match between sides.

I see very little real political discourse in the US these days, just predictable name-calling and mud-slinging. "Bush is a Nazi" vs "If you're a liberal you hate America" nonsense. Real paint-by-numbers stuff. Throw in the usual band of characters who just don't think for themselves at all (right-wing fundamentalists, college student protester-wannabes, etc) and it's a real mess.

I also think it's only going to get worse. If Kerry should win in November, I think the right will take the nastiness to a whole never level for four years.

[cartman]

I too am saddened by the amount of polarization that has occured over the past several years. Since I've been able to vote, only the 2000 election really made fully aware of it. In 1992, I would have been happy with any of the three candidates, but I had a clear preference I voted for. In '96, I would have been happy with Clinton or Dole. But in 2000, to me there was only one choice, and it was not Bush. I couldn't stand the thought of him being president. He's not a bad person, but I have a major problem with the people he surrounded himself with. Quite a few (namely Cheney and Rumsfeld) were major components of the Nixon Administration. You could see from Bush's previous business experience that he was not a hands on person, and would delegate decisions as much as possible. And when things got bad, he bailed the companies he was running. This pattern of behavior also carried over into his time as Governor of Texas. I'm not so much against a Republican being President, I'm just against this one.

On a seperate but related note, I think a lot of the polarization can be traced back to 1994, when the Republicans won the House and Senate. Newt Gingrich and his cronies turned partisian politics into an art form. A foreshadowing of this was the campaign to remove Jim Wright as Speaker of the House. What was painted as a "tragic breach of the public trust" for an honoraium arrangement for a speaking appearance by Mr. Wright, was ironically almost the exact same situation than ran Gingrich out of office.

I know there are a few generalizations in here, and I have left out quite a few things, but that's the gist of where I'm coming from.

[clintl]

I think that the overwhelming opposition to him personally actually cultivates the feelings of his defenders. I believe that many of the GWB defenders/apologists out there are bolstered in part by the way he has drawn such scorn - rallying around him, in a manner of speaking.


Quik has hit on a big part of GWB's appeal among his supporters. I think that GWB has pursued the conservative agenda to a degree that no other president in recent history (including Reagan) has, and that has endeared him to many people on the right. I also think that his initial success in dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan gave him the credibility among his supporters to pursue more dubious military solutions, and they are still willing to follow and support his judgement.

I also think that he is viewed by supporters as a winner. That's basically what got him nominated back 2000 in the first place, and until someone beats him, he's the GOP's best chance to prevail.

[KWhit]

Most of the Bush supporters that I have spoken to support Bush because "He surrounds himself with good people." For the most part, it seems that conservatives don't really have a lot of love for Bush himself, but for the conservative platform and for Cheney and Rumsfeld.

[digamma]

I think you can trace it back to Clinton.

US politics has always been a dirty business, but the Clinton years took things to a new level. The Republicans were so vicious in their pursuit of Clinton that I think it did long-term damage to how those on the left viewed politics. I think a lot of folks on the left of the spectrum, subconsciously or otherwise, saw what happened to Clinton and decided "OK, if that's how we're going to play, we're going to do the same to their next president."

So Bush had that one big strike against him from the start. The election fiasco was strike two, so Bush was in a deep hole before he ever really took over power. From there, the general arrogance of his adminstration has been strike three, and now it's just a no-holds-barred pissing match between sides.

I see very little real political discourse in the US these days, just predictable name-calling and mud-slinging. "Bush is a Nazi" vs "If you're a liberal you hate America" nonsense. Real paint-by-numbers stuff. Throw in the usual band of characters who just don't think for themselves at all (right-wing fundamentalists, college student protester-wannabes, etc) and it's a real mess.

I also think it's only going to get worse. If Kerry should win in November, I think the right will take the nastiness to a whole never level for four years.
I agree with much of what you wrote, particularly with regard to the state of political discourse in the US.

I would trace it back a bit further than Clinton, though I agree the Clinton era may have taken things to a new level.

I would point to two incidents. The first was the successful use of liberal as a bad word against Dukakis in 1988. I don't think it was dirty politics, per se, but I do think it opened the door for people like Rush Limbaugh to seize the theory.

The second, just a few months later, was the confirmation hearing of Bush 41's Secretary of Defense nominee John Tower, which turned into a personal trial of the man's drinking, womanizing, etc.

I think these events kind of set the stage for the gloves off politics we have seen in the last 10 years, where labels are more important that what one actually believes.

And, in a round about way of answering the original question, I think a lot of the disdain from/for either side now because both blame the other side for the creation of the tone we have today.

[John Galt]

Arrogance combined with perceived stupidity. I think Bush's unapologetic demeanor toward every problem and issue really pisses some people off. When that arrogant perspective is combined with idiocy, it creates a really bad combination.

[CraigSca]

From what I've seen, a lot of the Bush-bashing is in direct response to his "handling of Iraq". Apparently this aspect of his presidency is at an all-time low (most Americans dissaprove). But, I'm wondering...what could be done differently?

It's nice to play Monday morning quarterback and say "where are the WMDs?", etc., but this was not Bush's doing, nor were these WMDs a product of his presidency. Also, at the time the public was overwhelmingly in favor or toppling Saddam's regime and his years of baiting the UN weapons inspectors. Because of this, and the terrorist climate, we finally said enough is enough. So...now the regime is toppled, we're installing a new government (and if ANYONE had the notion this would be EASY, you're nuts) and we're dealing with a number of split factions within the country (Bosnia anyone?). So...it's not going to be easy, but what would the American people have done differently? What exactly has he not handled well post-war Iraq?

Oh...and I love the political rhetoric regarding "big oil" and the current state of gas prices. The problem is demand is skyhigh (domestically, and China/India). When demand goes up, prices go up. Case closed. We're such a nation of whiny children sometimes. Ok - it costs more money to fill up my SUV - waaah! waah! Can't the government DO SOMETHING!?

Shut up, and buy cars that get better gas mileage/hybrids. Don't ACCEPT an SUV that gets 9 mpg. Did you think the days of cheap gas would last forever?!

[Maple Leafs]

I think Bush's unapologetic demeanor toward every problem and issue really pisses some people off.Idiocy aside, do you really want a leader with an apologetic demanor? Do you want your head of state to be constantly waffling and apologizing and hedging, or do you want him to make a decision and stick with it?

[Fritz]

They are far more pissed off that he can't pronounce "Abu Ghraib" than that he might have fostered its environment.



What a fantastic line

[Cuckoo]

I agree with Maple Leafs on this one. I honestly believe that Bush's policies have so little an impact on his perceptions that it's astounding. And for those who believe he has the most conservative record, I would argue that a great many conservatives feel that he's not conservative enough. Calling him a right-wing freak has only become one of the tools of the opposition that, in my mind, isn't supported by record.

I think it comes down to many of the things mentioned by some others: his perceived intelligence (or lack thereof), his arrogance, his unwillingness to bend to his opposition (after running on a platform of unity), and his background. Most of all though, I think this is the first chance the Democrats have had the opportunity to attack a sitting President in the way the Republicans did Clinton. It's just their good fortune that all of those Bush traits I mentioned happened to exist.

[John Galt]

Idiocy aside, do you really want a leader with an apologetic demanor? Do you want your head of state to be constantly waffling and apologizing and hedging, or do you want him to make a decision and stick with it?

It isn't a choice between apologetic and unapologetic (or arrogance and complete humility). There is a continuum between those characteristics and I think a lot of the problem with Bush is that he seems entirely at the arrogant extreme. Presidents like Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan all had a degree of humility and uncertainty that I think was a positive thing. They projected leadership while still seeming to be concerned and reflective. Bush II is more like Nixon in that he seems to truly believe he is always right and informed about everything. Hence his only replies when something goes wrong are: 1) No its not, 2) I didn't know, or 3) That's someone else's fault. Hints of remorse, concern, and apology are totally absent.

There is no reason to go to extremes of being 100% waffler and being 100% righteous. In the last election I think we had two of the worst 100% righteous candidates and now we are stuck with the result.

[Arles]

I think that there is a great deal of partisanship on both sides. I really got into politics (from a caring standpoint) in the 2000 election. I was in college for most of the Clinton years and didn't really follow much. But it seems like social issues (abortion, affir action, gays, gun control, religion) have really made this divide so much more personal. We're at a bit of a cultural "fork in the road". The right wants to keep a society based largely on religious principles, gun freedom, traditional marriage, no affirmative action, tighter borders and limited access to abortion. The left wants a more secular society, stricter gun control, non-conventional marriage, continued support for AA, more open immigration, and no restrictions whatsoever on abortion.

Because it's a cultural war in our own country and both sides fear the death of their view of US ideals if their opponent wins, the partisanship is at an alltime high. I don't know that the candidate honestly matters. But, when it comes to Bush, I think the fact that he speaks with such "morale clarity" (or righteousness, as John put it) on the war and social issues really bothers the left in the same way that Clinton's "slick salesmanship" annoyed the right to no end.

[Arles]

Here's another interesting thing on the Iraq war. Just looking at documented facts:

In April 2003 (Gallup):
72% of Americans supported Bush's policy in the Iraqi War, 26% opposed.
69% think the war is justified even if WMD are never found, 22% disagree

Now (Gallup):
34% supported Bush's policy of Iraq, 61% disapprove

Now, let's look at the facts on the war. In a little over a year, the US has nearly 70% of Iraq safely under coalition control with only a few remaining "hot spots" in Najef, Fallujah, pieces of Carbala and small parts of Baghdad. Out of the over 200,000 people that have served in Iraq, approximately 800 have died (less than some days in WWII or weeks in Vietnam). There is a plan to hand over complete Iraqi soverignty to the Iraqi people within a month and have most forces leave within 6-8 months.

(Start opinion)
From a military standpoint, this is perhaps the strongest and most successful military campaign in the modern era. The regime, army, main supporters and even numerous foreign fighters have been nearly completed destroyed with a year, with a US casualty rate of less than 0.5% and very little loss to Iraqi civilian life.

Yet, the polls have gone from 72% in favor to 61% against. I think this shows how much influence the media has on the public - and it's quite scary. When the media was embedded with US soldiers and posting mostly positive stories about the soldiers and the war, support was sky high. But, the moment that the media started to get impatient and turn negative towards the war because it no longer fit their time table of how long Iraq should have taken, American support completely reversed. I shudder to think of the US policy in WWII had this American Media been stationed with the troops. All of Europe may be speaking German now.

Also, I think it also speaks to the new political climate. Right now, only 14% of democrats "approve" of the way the war is being handled. In April 2003, that number was 68%. Even more amazing, in that same month, 70% of democrats thought the US decision to go to war was the right thing to do. Now, only 28% think it was the right decision. You have to wonder how much of this is related to the upcoming election. A few guys getting beat up in Abu Ghraib and a 0.5% casualty rate should not be enough to kill Iraqi support from 70% to 28%.

[Easy Mac]

that and no WMD's have been found, which was the selling point of the war.

[Easy Mac]

dola, and I think there is a bit of a difference between Pearl Harbor sending us into a war and Bush pushing for war in Iraq. Although, given polls that show most of America thinks Iraq was fling the 9/11 planes, that may not be the case

[Arles]

that and no WMD's have been found, which was the selling point of the war.
In April 2003 (Gallup):
69% think the war is justified even if WMD are never found, 22% disagree

So, a year ago, almost 70% of american people were fine with the war in Iraq even if WMD were never found. I don't think your statement holds up when you look at the prior polls. The only rational view on the Iraqi approval numbers are that these polls are almost entirely political now. Iraq is becoming more about how you feel regarding Bush and less on what is actually happening in the war.

[Easy Mac]

And you ignore the idea that it was entirely political before.

[Glengoyne]

I agree with much of QS said. For most of my friends that hate GW, it comes down to intellectual contempt. I would never argue that the man is a brilliant thinker, but to consider someone who has accomplished what he has an idiot, is a bit far fetched. I also think that the intellectual argument is just an easy default position for most folks. Just like I considered Bill Clinton to be a slimy weasel, a lot of hard core bush haters sum up Bush as a moron. I also think that it is the people farthest to the left that take that position. Most of the people who proclaim that Bush is an idiot, also think that Gore won the election. To me that says much more about the reasoning capabilities of those detractors than it does the president.

As for why do I expect to support GW in the upcoming election? I don't like what the democrats had to offer. I was undecided prior to the 2000 election. During the '88 election I was a big time Gore supporter. For me it came down to the debates. I haven't really put my finger on what it was, but honestly I started to like him during the debates. I voted for him, but wasn't very happy with some of his agenda. His response to September 11th brought me in his camp though. Honestly when he stood up on that fire engine and addressed the crowd, he won me over. He demonstrated leadership when it was needed, and I respect him for rising to the occasion. I am also among those who cheered when I heard the phrase "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists". This is absolutely correct in my opinion. This is a fight where every nation has to choose a side. He made it clear that we EXPECTED them to back the right horse.

I am not a big time supporter. I was in agreement that we should go into Iraq, because I felt the U.N. needed to flex it's muscle. I still felt that way when the French sabotaged that process. I do think we should have finished the work in Afghanistan before dealing with Iraq, and I feel that post war Iraq has been poorly handled. Moreso immediately after the fall, than lately. If the Dems could have put forth a better candidate, I could have been tempted away. It is too bad Joe Lieberman can't make it out of a primary.

[Arles]

And you ignore the idea that it was entirely political before.
But if it was, why were 70% of democrats supporting the war in 2003? I think originally this war was looked on by most as the right thing. But, the months of hammering by the press as well as the high politically charged atmosphere of the 2004 election have made the war a line in the sand for both parties. If you are on the left, the war is wrong regardless of what happens as it hurts Bush if things go poorly. If you are on the right, the war is right regardless of what happens as it helps Bush.

IMO, the right and left will feel the exact same about the war in 4 months regardless of what happens. And, the "undecideds" will base their opinion entirely on what the press says - regardless of what happens.

I think Bush is in trouble here as this war has been executed to near perfection and support has been cut in half. Regardless of how well Iraq goes from here on in, the democrats will still be against it and he will be relying on press coverage to get the independents. And, the odds of positive press coverage on anything in Iraq over the next six months are not very good, even if good things happen.

[Easy Mac]

since when did 70% of America become Democrat.

And I guess this is reflective of your standard of perfection.

[GrantDawg]

And I guess this is reflective of your standard of perfection.
Shot right from debate to the personal. Well done.

[Easy Mac]

what? I don't think this can be classified as a "perfect war" I think shock and awe went well, but after that, everything began to falter.

[Arles]

since when did 70% of America become Democrat.
You're not listening to what I am saying. I didn't say 70% of America was democrat, I said 70% of democrats support the war back in April of 2003. Here's the poll:

The Los Angeles Times Poll. April 2-3, 2003. N=745 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4 (total sample).

"Do you support or oppose the Bush Administration's decision to take military action against Iraq at this time?"

Support, Oppose, Don'tKnow
ALL 77, 21, 2
Democrats 70, 27, 3
Independents 72, 27, 1
Republicans 95, 4, 1

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq4.htm

In the last Gallup poll, only 14% of democrats supported the war. I think that pretty much makes my point.

And I guess this is reflective of your standard of perfection.
Using every possible metric for a successful war - civilian casualties, US forces casualties, speed in reconstruction, % of the country occupied, % of opposing regime destroyed, time in handing off power to a new goverment - this war has basically set positive records.

Yet, you look on it as a failure of some sorts. I would really like to know why.

[Easy Mac]

I deem it a "failure" becuase he stated mistruths to get there and misled the public. I deem it a "failure" becuase there is no clear plan to get out of there. I deem it a "failure" because there is not set government to hand it over to. I deem it a "failure" because we have soldiers dying over there every day for something that he proclaimed was over months ago. I deem it a "failure" because it created a fracture in the country by pushing his agenda at all costs and ignoring any suggestion for all sides of the debate.

Most of the war "problems" that you seem to ignore I don't place on Bush, but I don't think he's done himself any favors by ignoring them. You're only as strong as your weakest link, and Bush has a lot of those right now.

[Buddy Grant]

To those on the left, why do you think so many people (agree with / love / will give the benefit of the doubt to) Bush so vehemently?
I think the adoration is sometimes a knee jerk defensive reaction to what is often harsh criticism of the Bush administrations actions and policies. Some of these folks will give the benefit of the doubt to the administration when it's claims do not match most media coverage because there seems to be a general Republican mistrust of much media coverage of US/world events (hence the "left wing media" argument) that began long before the news became as bad as it is today. If Bush critics said careful stuff like "maybe he could have chosen a wiser plan in the middle east" instead of "he's an idiot who continues to make bone headed decisions" then Bush supporters would not get as defensive. When someone says Bush is an idiot, the implication is that anyone who voted for and supports him currently is also an idiot, and people will get quite offended when you call them an idiot.

The folks that love Bush seem to like the "he'd fit in at my backyard barbecue" image, and to many of these folks, signs that Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree are not necessarily negatives. Many people (Chris Matthews of Hardball is one) dislike or mistrust the intelligentsia of US society, and I imagine to them someone that is not much brighter than they are is refreshing in a Political candidate. Bush is very impressive when he is allowed to speak about the things he believes very strongly in his heart, and since he is a somewhat simple man he expresses these strong beliefs in simple words that anyone can understand, a perfect way for any American political candidate to communicate to the people.

[miked]

Interesting opinions. I'm not exactly hating on Bush, I'm really hating on the people he surrounded himself with. I'm 100% against Rumsfeld, 110% against Ashcroft, when he first took office, he appointed Chritie Todd Whitman to head the EPA (anyone from NJ like myself know what a big joke that is). And the people I liked that he put on his cabinet don't even seem like they want to be there anymore (see Powell).

When he ran, he told us that our militaries were spread to thin, fighting other countries' battles...that there was too much partisanship in politics. And it seems to me he's done the exact opposite. Anyone who speaks out against the war in Iraq is labeled a terrorist supporter (I've actually had people who were Republicans that I know call me this). I'm a bit tired of being told if I don't agree with a decision, I am un-patriotic and un-American and taking our freedom's for granted. I'm also tired of the scare tatics being used by the Bush administration, in that a vote for Kerry will weaken our defenses and make us vulnerable to terrorists because he voted against giving GW a blank check for the "War on Terror" and Iraq.

All this being said, I don't think John Kerry is a great alternative, but seeing the people that GW has appointed to powerful positions (you should see who leads his scientific and medical councils--my area) and that is why I am not a big fan.

[Easy Mac]

Shot right from debate to the personal. Well done.
And I think the personal attacks started with randal7's post.

[Flasch186]

For me personally, it is more about trust issues so that is really where my heart is. I feel moreso with this admin. that I have been lied to, but that is because i dont believe a lot of what has been said, sometimes only to have my point further emboldened by expose, and spin. It is easy however to see that all the other side has to do is believe what is being said and they are far more emboldened to defend the admin. Through the ultra polarization of our country (which may have started back in the day but has certainly been exacerbated since Clinton/Bush era) we seem to be entrenched in our lines of thought. It is frustrating because we both see evidence to the contrary and hold onto it when making the debate. I dont know if it is human nature but some stuff comes out from the admin. that i dont buy...and then eventually, because of the trend, it is hard for anything to crack through the crap detector. When I look in the mirror I feel that I am very open minded on the issues, as there are some i disagree with the dems and agree with the admin, thusly making me feel like my thoughts and opinions have more merit (eventhough they dont). Some people though only speak party lines, defend the admin, attack the admin (which i find myself a lot on this side as of late), or attack eachother. I find myself to be well read, but the opposition would say misguided....as long as were in thsoe two camps there is really no where to go....cuz much like heaven, we wont know who's right until the truth is found out....

[QuikSand]

Using every possible metric for a successful war - civilian casualties, US forces casualties, speed in reconstruction, % of the country occupied, % of opposing regime destroyed, time in handing off power to a new goverment - this war has basically set positive records.

Yet, you look on it as a failure of some sorts. I would really like to know why.

I have trouble believing that most people set their expectations for this incursion against a recently-crippled Iraq at the same point as we had engaging the Axis forces in World War II or (essentially) the Chinese-supported North Vietnamese. Did we really think that we'd incur hundreds of casualties a day -- making the actual outcome we're seeing a blessing by comparison?

It's hard for me, at least, to accept your implicit assertion that since we've only lost 800 or so Americans that everything's hunky dory. Perhaps that makes me naive, but I think I have a lot of company.

I'm not a rabid anti-war type... but I think you're making a pretty extreme case, and portraying it as if it's unassailable.

[randal7]

And I think the personal attacks started with randal7's post.

???

I don't see an attack in my post, nor a reference to a specific person. If my meaning is unclear (I was trying to be brief), tell me what part you read as an attack and I will give a longer response.

R

[Senator]

Quiksand is summing it up nicely from where I see things.

[randal7]

It's hard for me, at least, to accept your implicit assertion that since we've only lost 800 or so Americans that everything's hunky dory.

I don't think this is what Arles means (at least I hope not). I think his point is more that people have unrealistic expectations of what this war involves. Every death is a tragedy and I don't want to get into what is an "acceptable" amount of losses, because "none" is the only acceptable amount, and that cannot be achieved. Not to minimize, but think about the impression you'd have of the US if every death of a cop and fireman was reported on the national news all day every day. As to the notion that reconstruction is in chaos, my memory is that we occupied Germany and Japan for a decade, and those were first-world countries. Iraq is not, and has no cultural history of democracy to boot. No way this becomes a civilized democracy in 12 months. Bush is to blame here for not coming out and saying this from the beginning. Not for screwing it up, which I don't think it is, but for not preparing the public for the reality that this is a big job and long-term commitment.

R

[Arles]

I have trouble believing that most people set their expectations for this incursion against a recently-crippled Iraq at the same point as we had engaging the Axis forces in World War II or (essentially) the Chinese-supported North Vietnamese. Did we really think that we'd incur hundreds of casualties a day -- making the actual outcome we're seeing a blessing by comparison?

It's hard for me, at least, to accept your implicit assertion that since we've only lost 800 or so Americans that everything's hunky dory. Perhaps that makes me naive, but I think I have a lot of company.

I'm not a rabid anti-war type... but I think you're making a pretty extreme case, and portraying it as if it's unassailable.

I guess my question is what was your expectation for this Iraqi war? It seems to me that much of the media and some of the citizens felt this would be a 4-5 month "skirmish" with few lives lost and a completely changed Iraq in a year. I don't know that the expectations people had for this were realistic.

Again, going into a country like Iraq and uprooting its regime and completely changing its form of government is a pretty big undertaking. And to think it would take less than a year and with only a handful of lives lost seems unrealistic to me. And maybe that's the difference. We live in a soundbite nation and expect immediate results on everything - including war.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Most of the Bush supporters that I have spoken to support Bush because "He surrounds himself with good people." For the most part, it seems that conservatives don't really have a lot of love for Bush himself, but for the conservative platform and for Cheney and Rumsfeld.

This is an interesting post. I actually like George W. Bush the person, it's the people around him with the exception of Colin Powell that I do not like. How Donald Rumsfeld is Secretary of Defense for the third time continues to baffle me. Even Nixon didn't trust him (he is talked about on some of the Nixon tapes available to the public) and that speaks volumes.

My perception of him came from the fact I did not like the job he did as Governor of Texas and as an owner of the Texas Rangers he was even worse. But I don't have a hatred of the man, I just think he is misled by his cabinet and by his father. Though I do not agree with his convictions, I respect them.

[Easy Mac]

I guess my question is what was your expectation for this Iraqi war? It seems to me that much of the media and some of the citizens felt this would be a 4-5 month "skirmish" with few lives lost and a completely changed Iraq in a year. I don't know that the expectations people had for this were realistic.

Again, going into a country like Iraq and uprooting its regime and completely changing its form of government is a pretty big undertaking. And to think it would take less than a year and with only a handful of lives lost seems unrealistic to me. And maybe that's the difference. We live in a soundbite nation and expect immediate results on everything - including war.
We are obviously going to agree to disagree, but I think we differ in our opinion on this particular subject becuase in my opinion, the administration was setting up for a "soundbite" war. That was the whole plan all along. Why do you think they were so adamant about letting everyone know they were going to do something that would "shock and awe" us. They put that expectation upon themselves, and acted like they could make this a nice, tidy war. THey said this would not be liek conventional wars that we have fought.

However, once things started to run a bit off course, the administration tried to "spin" it (can't think of a better word) and say that we should compare it to previous wars. They wanted it both ways. The media bought the hype and I think greatly aided the buildup to the war. However, the administration set up unreal expectations, and the media jumped on them for it. I don't think the media has worked only one way during this whole matter, and I think that those who are defending Bush are too quick to point out a media bias, while they basically ignored the media's help in "selling" the war.

Did this post make sense, I know I wanted to say more, but I forgot most of it half way through.

[Maple Leafs]

For most of my friends that hate GW, it comes down to intellectual contempt.I think that's true on some level, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Yes, lots of people hate Bush because they think he's stupid, just like a lot of people hated Clinton because they thought he was a liar who couldn't keep it in his pants. If Kerry wins, Republicans will find a reason to hate him too (leading cadidate right now would be because he's wishy-washy, but that could always change).

I'd argue that the hate comes first, then the reason for the hate gets pulled out of the Big Bag O' Late Night Monologue Stereotypes.

[Arles]

Bush said this in Sept, 2003:

"Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. This will take time and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom and to make our own nation more secure.

America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping Iraq in the same spirit -- for their sake, and our own."

Doesn't sound like someone describing a "nice, tidy war".

[portnoise]

Doesn't sound like someone describing a "nice, tidy war".

Arles, did you sense any anti-Bush sentiment before the Iraq war, and particularly, before the media turned against the administration because it expected "nice, tidy war"?

If yes, where do you think it came from?

[John Galt]

Bush said this in Sept, 2003:

"Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. This will take time and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom and to make our own nation more secure.

America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping Iraq in the same spirit -- for their sake, and our own."

Doesn't sound like someone describing a "nice, tidy war".

The quote is talking about the entire war on terror being long, not the war in Iraq. Look at the quotes on this board from before the war. I argued against the war largely based on the idea that America's efforts to lead revolutions rarely work and that post-war reconstruction is likely to fail. Everyone here quoted different people in the adminstration about how easy the war was going to be and how Iraq would be "shocked and awed" into submission. The whole premature "Mission Accomplished" thing didn't help either.

[ScottVib]

Quik has hit on a big part of GWB's appeal among his supporters. I think that GWB has pursued the conservative agenda to a degree that no other president in recent history (including Reagan) has, and that has endeared him to many people on the right. I also think that his initial success in dealing with the Taliban in Afghanistan gave him the credibility among his supporters to pursue more dubious military solutions, and they are still willing to follow and support his judgement.

I also think that he is viewed by supporters as a winner. That's basically what got him nominated back 2000 in the first place, and until someone beats him, he's the GOP's best chance to prevail.
On the last point I would disagree... I think if McCain had gotten the nomination he would have won the election without any of the Florida nonsense. (Sorry for the threadjack)

[Arles]

I do think Bush brought some of this on himself with the way him and his adminstration took credit for "victory" so soon. I guess what I am trying to do is separate the actually military effort in Iraq from Bush and look at it from a historical standpoint (something not many on eithe side have been able to do). Again, when doing that, it seems like a resounding success. So, the point that no one seems to be able to refute is that the polls on Iraq seem to be more of an indictment on what people think about Bush and NOT what is actually going on in Iraq.

In other words, if John Kerry was sworn in as president tomorrow, I bet the support of Iraq on the left would go from 14% to around 55% and the support on the right would go from the 80% it is at now down to around 60%. Now, this is just complete conjecture and could never be properly verified, but I do believe that would happen. I'm not really a huge fan of Bush, but I think the Iraq war was the right thing to do. And, because of no fault of the commanders on the ground and initial war plan, public support is waning because a chunk of America simply dislikes Bush and it's an election year.

[KWhit]

No, support is waning because people don't like hearing about Americans dying in a war that is supposedly over. Especially when the administration has never adequately described how Iraq ties to terror.

[John Galt]

I do think Bush brought some of this on himself with the way him and his adminstration took credit for "victory" so soon. I guess what I am trying to do is separate the actually military effort in Iraq from Bush and look at it from a historical standpoint (something not many on eithe side have been able to do). Again, when doing that, it seems like a resounding success. So, the point that no one seems to be able to refute is that the polls on Iraq seem to be more of an indictment on what people think about Bush and NOT what is actually going on in Iraq.

In other words, if John Kerry was sworn in as president tomorrow, I bet the support of Iraq on the left would go from 14% to around 55% and the support on the right would go from the 80% it is at now down to around 60%. Now, this is just complete conjecture and could never be properly verified, but I do believe that would happen. I'm not really a huge fan of Bush, but I think the Iraq war was the right thing to do. And, because of no fault of the commanders on the ground and initial war plan, public support is waning because a chunk of America simply dislikes Bush and it's an election year.

Looking at the war from a historical perspective is a bit hard when it hasn't even been a year. The loss of (American) lives has been relatively low, but how do we know what has been accomplished? The reprocussions of this conflict in Iraq, in the Middle East, and around the war won't be felt for a long time. It is easy for people to say that "Saddam is gone" and that is something, but America's efforts in democracy building post-conflict (with the unique exceptions of post WWII) have been horrible. If Iraq's revolution unravels (and the state could even be worse - especially if it abandons its secular roots), then this war will be a failure in almost every regard. I hope it doesn't, but it seems far to early to assess this war from a historical perspective.

[ScottVib]

No, support is waning because people don't like hearing about Americans dying in a war that is supposedly over. Especially when the administration has never adequately described how Iraq ties to terror.
Actually I think the prison abuse scandal has done more to hurt support for the war then this.

[Antmeister]

What disturbed me most about the whole thing is that we didn't originally go into this to liberate Iraq. After 9/11, we were supposed to hunt down and cripple all of the existing terrorist cells. So we started in Afghanistan and we have yet to find Osama bin Laden. We did seem to cripple them, but it only seemed temporary.

So overall I would have to say that I am bothered because of the priorities that were set. We still haven't accomplished our first goal and yet we moved immediately into Iraq while many of our troops are still in Afghanistan. On top of that, Korea is much more of a threat when it comes to WMDs than Iraq ever was. I don't doubt that Saddam had WMDs, but I doubt he has the number that North Korea has.

No one will disagree that the liberation of Iraq is a good thing, but if our initial response to 9/11 was to protect America, I have to say that Bush is doing a poor job. We are spreading our resources too thin and if a much more significant threat rears its ugly head, we won't have the resources to fight it.

On top of that, can it be argued that Saudi Arabia probably did more to fund terrorists than Saddam ever could.

[KWhit]

Actually I think the prison abuse scandal has done more to hurt support for the war then this.
True, but support had already gone way down before the scandal broke.

[sterlingice]

This was a good start to a thread and a great idea and I was enjoying the few people who could take themselves out of the argument (Quik, others: some great stuff!) but then people couldn't resist putting a little snipe or two in there and now it's just unreadable. Someone would start down a nice line of reasoning and then BAM: "and I can't believe how stupid those Dems/Reps are because they believe this". The idea was to initially be in the other's shoes: could you defend the other guy and see why people do what they do and try to build some understanding. But now we're back to partisan fighting. Thanks to all those on both sides of the aisle who made this a good thread initially and shame on you people who couldn't resist taking a shot at the other side and ruined this. You know who you are.

SI

[Easy Mac]

No offense SI, but this thread was over as soon as this line came through:

Because there is apparently no shortage of people in this country who do not possess the ability to make correct judgements on some situations.

edit: and it would have been over sooner had more of the libs had been here at the time.

[Arles]

What disturbed me most about the whole thing is that we didn't originally go into this to liberate Iraq. After 9/11, we were supposed to hunt down and cripple all of the existing terrorist cells. So we started in Afghanistan and we have yet to find Osama bin Laden. We did seem to cripple them, but it only seemed temporary.

So overall I would have to say that I am bothered because of the priorities that were set. We still haven't accomplished our first goal and yet we moved immediately into Iraq while many of our troops are still in Afghanistan. On top of that, Korea is much more of a threat when it comes to WMDs than Iraq ever was. I don't doubt that Saddam had WMDs, but I doubt he has the number that North Korea has.

No one will disagree that the liberation of Iraq is a good thing, but if our initial response to 9/11 was to protect America, I have to say that Bush is doing a poor job. We are spreading our resources too thin and if a much more significant threat rears its ugly head, we won't have the resources to fight it.

On top of that, can it be argued that Saudi Arabia probably did more to fund terrorists than Saddam ever could.

I see your point. But, I don't think you can say: "if our initial response to 9/11 was to protect America, I have to say that Bush is doing a poor job."

The fact is we have had no successful domestic terrorism attacks. So, even if Bush shouldn't get all the credit for this, I don't see how anyone can say he has done a poor job in protecting America. That's like saying a starting CB that never gave up a TD all season did a bad job in coverage. Maybe he isn't the best, but the results show he did a pretty good job.

Another thing he's done is set the battlefield for terrorism in the middle east, and not the US. Who's to say all the terrorists going to Iraq to attack the coalition wouldn't be in the US plotting another domestic terrorism attack right now if we hadn't gone into Iraq? There's a lot of unknowns in this terrorism process, but one known is that Bush has done a very good job at protecting America from terrorism. It's just a question as to whether or not all of it was needed (ie, Iraq). And, I don't know that we will know the answer to this for many years to come.

[Arles]

This was a good start to a thread and a great idea and I was enjoying the few people who could take themselves out of the argument (Quik, others: some great stuff!) but then people couldn't resist putting a little snipe or two in there and now it's just unreadable. Someone would start down a nice line of reasoning and then BAM: "and I can't believe how stupid those Dems/Reps are because they believe this". The idea was to initially be in the other's shoes: could you defend the other guy and see why people do what they do and try to build some understanding. But now we're back to partisan fighting. Thanks to all those on both sides of the aisle who made this a good thread initially and shame on you people who couldn't resist taking a shot at the other side and ruined this. You know who you are.

SI
I think this thread has been pretty productive. I'm fairly middle of the road on social issues, but a bit hawkish on the war on terror. Therefore, hearing what people like Antmeister and Easy Mac have to say from their side gets me a unique perspective on why they feel a certain way about Iraq.

Before you can step in someone else's shoes and make comments, you have to understand their argument and I think this thread is helping that (albeit with a little of a partisan dig from time to time).

[Antmeister]

I see your point. But, I don't think you can say: "if our initial response to 9/11 was to protect America, I have to say that Bush is doing a poor job."

You are correct, I should have rephrased this differently. The point I was trying to make is that the actions taken after 9/11 were prioritized poorly. If our goal was to protect America, Afghanistan should have been on top of the list, Saudi Arabia should have probably been next (since the poeple flying the planes were primarily Saudi). And North Korea should have been next. It could be argued over the order, but one task should completed before moving on to another.


The fact is we have had no successful domestic terrorism attacks. So, even if Bush shouldn't get all the credit for this, I don't see how anyone can say he has done a poor job in protecting America. That's like saying a starting CB that never gave up a TD all season did a bad job in coverage. Maybe he isn't the best, but the results show he did a pretty good job.

As said earlier, I am just disappointed in who we are going after. There are a number of other countries who wish to do harm to us that is not even being considered right now and they have way more resources. To use your football analogy, this is like a CB covering an offensive lineman. :D


Another thing he's done is set the battlefield for terrorism in the middle east, and not the US. Who's to say all the terrorists going to Iraq to attack the coalition wouldn't be in the US plotting another domestic terrorism attack right now if we hadn't gone into Iraq? There's a lot of unknowns in this terrorism process, but one known is that Bush has done a very good job at protecting America from terrorism. It's just a question as to whether or not all of it was needed (ie, Iraq). And, I don't know that we will know the answer to this for many years to come.

Believe me, I am not upset that Iraq was toppled. It should have been done a decade earlier, but, in my opinion, we are spread way too thin. Because he is trying to accomplish a number of goals at once, a more serious threat will harm us in a number of ways. And I am not talking about a threat within the United States either. Imagine if North Korea actually backs up their threats. What then? Do we pull out of Iraq and forget trying to build that nation just so that we can now focus on North Korea. Do we pull additional troops out of Afghanistan to support this? I am just concerned that we are vurnerable. I haven't been against the war campaign. I have just disappointed with the way it has been implemented.

[NoMyths]

On the whole, a good discussion. Many of the points I'd make have been made, although I'd probably also point to things like the administration's environmental policy--which is, by most scientific standards, anti-environment--and economic policies as two polarizers for the 'left'.

One other point: while our war dead still number under 1000, total casualties--American soldiers who've lost limbs, blood, and minds in the Iraq war--are estimated at anywhere from 4,609 (official government figure) to 10,000+. To point to 'only' the 802 dead is to minimize the full scope of the war's trauma.

[Sharpieman]

I think the main reason that so many people on the right agree or tend to defend Bush on almost every issue, is a severe lack of perspective. They are so unwillingly to take themselves out of their ideological bubble that they don't, or largely ignore Bush's faults. Don't get me wrong, Bush has done some very good things for this country. Among them is the fact that their hasn't been a terrorist attack in the US since 9/11 and I attribute that partly to W's Patriot Act that authorizes the FBI and CIA to share information.

I don't see it as the right's fault that they aren't able to put things in perspective. I've said it before that this country is becoming more and more politically polarized and in effect politics has been much more cutthroat lately. Also, I don't think its the whole right that isn't able to put this Presidency in perspective, many middle-of-the-road conservatives have jumped off the W bandwagon for many different reasons(one of the main reasons I hear from my fellow conservatives is the lack of fiscal responsiblity that W has shown and the subsequent cuts in many places, for example, the rate of growth nationally for education spending has dropped to its lowest point since the 1990-91 recession).

[Glengoyne]

On the last point I would disagree... I think if McCain had gotten the nomination he would have won the election without any of the Florida nonsense. (Sorry for the threadjack)
McCain could have conceded Florida, and won in a landslide. If the Republicans would realize this the Democratic party would become inconsequential. Most of the voters in this country are moderates that don't tow the party line for either extreme.

[Easy Mac]

can't we just agree that Bush and Kerry are douchebags.

[Fritz]

what I read above is "people are so unwilling to change their point of view that they are unable to have mine."

[Cuckoo]

McCain could have conceded Florida, and won in a landslide. If the Republicans would realize this the Democratic party would become inconsequential. Most of the voters in this country are moderates that don't tow the party line for either extreme.

While that may be true, most of the money comes from those who do tow the party line.

[Easy Mac]

what I read above is "people are so unwilling to change their wrong point of view that they are unable to have mine, which is right."
fixed that for you.

[Cuckoo]

can't we just agree that Bush and Kerry are douchebags.

Yes, yes I think we can. :D

[Cuckoo]

I think the main reason that so many people on the right agree or tend to defend Bush on almost every issue, is a severe lack of perspective. They are so unwillingly to take themselves out of their ideological bubble that they don't, or largely ignore Bush's faults. Don't get me wrong, Bush has done some very good things for this country. Among them is the fact that their hasn't been a terrorist attack in the US since 9/11 and I attribute that partly to W's Patriot Act that authorizes the FBI and CIA to share information.

I don't see it as the right's fault that they aren't able to put things in perspective. I've said it before that this country is becoming more and more politically polarized and in effect politics has been much more cutthroat lately. Also, I don't think its the whole right that isn't able to put this Presidency in perspective, many middle-of-the-road conservatives have jumped off the W bandwagon for many different reasons(one of the main reasons I hear from my fellow conservatives is the lack of fiscal responsiblity that W has shown and the subsequent cuts in many places, for example, the rate of growth nationally for education spending has dropped to its lowest point since the 1990-91 recession).

I'm sure you just forgot to mention the left's equal lack of ability to put things in perspective.

[Easy Mac]

I'm sure you just forgot to mention the left's equal lack of ability to put things in perspective.
no... no... we're good.

[Sharpieman]

No, I'm saying my view is completely correct. See, all I'm saying is that many on the right tend to ignore or even not see Bush's faults because they don't look at this Presidency in an eagle-eye perspective. The consequence of this is that many on the right defend Bush on everything, even when he's completely wrong. Thus, our political landscape is polarized.

[Sharpieman]

The left does have a lack of perspective too that mostly was prevelant during the Clinton admin. It still is prevelant today, as the left seems never to give W any credit concerning the war on terror. Where I think he's done a very good job.

[Cuckoo]

No, I'm saying my view is completely correct. See, all I'm saying is that many on the right tend to ignore or even not see Bush's faults because they don't look at this Presidency in an eagle-eye perspective. The consequence of this is that many on the right defend Bush on everything, even when he's completely wrong. Thus, our political landscape is polarized.

My point in my response to you is that this is not the only reason our political landscape is polarized. The fact is that just as you are correct in your assessment of many on the right, the left is equally as blinded by partisan perspectives that they ignore Bush's successes. Both sides, when speaking about pure idealogues, are guilty of this, not just the right.

[Glengoyne]

You are correct, I should have rephrased this differently. The point I was trying to make is that the actions taken after 9/11 were prioritized poorly. If our goal was to protect America, Afghanistan should have been on top of the list, Saudi Arabia should have probably been next (since the poeple flying the planes were primarily Saudi). And North Korea should have been next. It could be argued over the order, but one task should completed before moving on to another.



As said earlier, I am just disappointed in who we are going after. There are a number of other countries who wish to do harm to us that is not even being considered right now and they have way more resources. To use your football analogy, this is like a CB covering an offensive lineman. :D



Believe me, I am not upset that Iraq was toppled. It should have been done a decade earlier, but, in my opinion, we are spread way too thin. Because he is trying to accomplish a number of goals at once, a more serious threat will harm us in a number of ways. And I am not talking about a threat within the United States either. Imagine if North Korea actually backs up their threats. What then? Do we pull out of Iraq and forget trying to build that nation just so that we can now focus on North Korea. Do we pull additional troops out of Afghanistan to support this? I am just concerned that we are vurnerable. I haven't been against the war campaign. I have just disappointed with the way it has been implemented.
Saudi Arabia? Are you serious? We should topple the ONLY "ally" we have in the region? I don't think that makes any sense. I completely agree that we should have perfected our nation building in Afghanistan before tackling Iraq. The only nation that deserved to be on the short list for regime change with Iraq was Iran, and I think most people feel Iran will collapse in on itself much sooner than later. I don't think North Korea has what it takes to pull off an offensive on the peninsula, so I don't think that is that large of a consideration.

I would note that looking at the big picture, Saudi Arabia is actually a target in this war. Because the real hope is that a successfully democratic Iraq will breed discontent and change in the neighboring countries.

[Cuckoo]

The left does have a lack of perspective too that mostly was prevelant during the Clinton admin. It still is prevelant today, as the left seems never to give W any credit concerning the war on terror. Where I think he's done a very good job.

Okay, you just said what I was saying. :D

[Sharpieman]

I was just answering the question in my first post Cuckoo. Nothing more. I gave my thoughts on why I think that the right tends to defend and agree with Bush so much.

[Cuckoo]

I was just answering the question in my first post Cuckoo. Nothing more. I gave my thoughts on why I think that the right tends to defend and agree with Bush so much.

Gotcha. I just misunderstood then. My fault.

[GrantDawg]

My point in my response to you is that this is not the only reason our political landscape is polarized. The fact is that just as you are correct in your assessment of many on the right, the left is equally as blinded by partisan perspectives that they ignore Bush's successes. Both sides, when speaking about pure idealogues, are guilty of this, not just the right.
We have a winner. Tell him what he's won, Fritz....

[Arles]

As I said in another thread, if terrorism was not an issue, I could make a strong case for voting for Kerry. Having a republican congress and democrat president would keep spending down like what happened in the 90s and please the fiscal conservative in me. The republicans wouldn't have a rubber stamp on most of their spending bills. Plus, Kerry wouldn't have a prayer in getting many of his big spending plans on health care and such through the house.

So, if I felt that Kerry would see the war on terror all the way through without waivering if the polls went south, I would consider voting for him. But, I just don't see him as being resolute enough in the war on terror. And, I think Bush's "loose cannon" rep in Europe and the world gets him some street cred with the Arabs in that they actually believe he will come after them if they screw up. I don't see that same level of fear directed towards Kerry.

[Antmeister]

Saudi Arabia? Are you serious? We should topple the ONLY "ally" we have in the region? I don't think that makes any sense. I completely agree that we should have perfected our nation building in Afghanistan before tackling Iraq. The only nation that deserved to be on the short list for regime change with Iraq was Iran, and I think most people feel Iran will collapse in on itself much sooner than later. I don't think North Korea has what it takes to pull off an offensive on the peninsula, so I don't think that is that large of a consideration.

I would note that looking at the big picture, Saudi Arabia is actually a target in this war. Because the real hope is that a successfully democratic Iraq will breed discontent and change in the neighboring countries.

Yes. I believe Saudi Arbia should be on that short list. It was not only funded by some Saudis, but many of them that took over the planes were Saudi as well. I didn't mean we should take the same approach as Iraq. I only mean that the ones responsible for funding should have been weeded out of the country and held responsible. I like your opinion of what the big picture is, but my opinion is that this could have been much later. That's all.

[Cuckoo]

We have a winner. Tell him what he's won, Fritz....


Please, please don't let Fritz give me my prize. :D

[Easy Mac]

Chubby's in the building, I give him 5 minutes.

[BishopMVP]

Longer post was deleted, so sorry about the succinctness.

Basically, from my perspective (generally as a Bush defender on these boards and in the real world) things are almost never as bad as the opposition claims (or as good as the Bush camp claims.) For example, the Patriot Act, or as the anti-War crowd calls it, the worst civil liberties infringement EVER. The obvious counter-examples are Alien & Sedition Acts, Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus, FDR interning Japanese and other during WWII. We could also use the Bush is the worst President EVER, etc. Unfortunately the two possible responses are either effectively saying "Well, it's not that bad," and showing some examples, probably bringing the person a little closer to your side but making your side appear weak and not worth defending or by saying "No, you're wrong," which immediately sets up two polar opposites. #2 is much easier, requires less thought and doesn't leave you with the feeling that you had to compromise, but it just contributes to the downward spiral.

[Fritz]

Mac, I was putting the dig on Sharpieman, not you. He responded to the dig, which is what I was after.

[nfg22]

I too am saddened by the amount of polarization that has occured over the past several years. Since I've been able to vote, only the 2000 election really made fully aware of it. In 1992, I would have been happy with any of the three candidates, but I had a clear preference I voted for. In '96, I would have been happy with Clinton or Dole. But in 2000, to me there was only one choice, and it was not Bush. I couldn't stand the thought of him being president. He's not a bad person, but I have a major problem with the people he surrounded himself with. Quite a few (namely Cheney and Rumsfeld) were major components of the Nixon Administration. You could see from Bush's previous business experience that he was not a hands on person, and would delegate decisions as much as possible. And when things got bad, he bailed the companies he was running. This pattern of behavior also carried over into his time as Governor of Texas. I'm not so much against a Republican being President, I'm just against this one.

On a seperate but related note, I think a lot of the polarization can be traced back to 1994, when the Republicans won the House and Senate. Newt Gingrich and his cronies turned partisian politics into an art form. A foreshadowing of this was the campaign to remove Jim Wright as Speaker of the House. What was painted as a "tragic breach of the public trust" for an honoraium arrangement for a speaking appearance by Mr. Wright, was ironically almost the exact same situation than ran Gingrich out of office.

I know there are a few generalizations in here, and I have left out quite a few things, but that's the gist of where I'm coming from.



Just to let ya know gore would have had rumsfield also who served under clinton who you said you would been ok with, so basically its cheney that did it for ya...owned

[Warhammer]

I hate to burst some bubbles here, but most conservatives are not thrilled with Bush.

Most conservatives are united behind Bush because they view Bush as being stronger on the War Against Terror then Kerry will be (has he even put together a plan and announced it to the public yet?). That said, most true conservatives are against many of the domestic issues that Bush has done, the steel tariff, the endowment for the arts, etc. When you get down to it, domestically Bush has hardly been conservative, it is only in his stance on foreign relations that he has been conservative.

It is also funny about how Europe views him as a loose cannon. They also viewed another conservative as a loose cannon about 20 years ago, and that president helped to lift the Iron Curtain. Despite disagreements from time to time, European nations will remain our allies. The main reason they dislike us is that we are the lone superpower.

With all that said, I can understand the other side's view of Bush. Aside from Iraq, they do not have many issues to run against him. If anything, his domestic agenda has been more liberal than conservative, tariffs, funding of social groups, arts endowment, etc. (mainly liberal issues/agendas). I see them having a problem with is his strong convictions, principles, and religious faith.

Just my .02.

[digamma]

Just to let ya know gore would have had rumsfield also who served under clinton who you said you would been ok with, so basically its cheney that did it for ya...owned
Not sure who or what you owned.

Clinton had three secretaries of defense: Les Aspin, William Perry and William Cohen.

I'd be pretty confident wagering my life savings and first born that Rumsfeld would not have been Gore's Secretary of Defense.

[Buccaneer]

Overall, I think it's largely a case of people building the arguments to fit their pre-determined feelings.
I think this is very accurate. Perhaps the reasons I 'attack' liberals here is that 1) they think they are offering enlightened political discourse - they are not, and 2) they offer perceptions and opinions based on narrowly-defined selective information as facts. BOTH sides engage in such fallacies but I perceive that one side does this more than the other because of their elitists/academic base.

An example of the latter is Easy Mac's usual quip. Bush II has governed largely, not from the right, but as a Democrat. He has lost, so far, 20% of his conservative base because many of the domestic policies and enactments have been exactly as you would expect from a Democratic president. Perhaps foreign policy is more "right wing" I would submit. But the quip that he has pandered and governed as a conservative 'right-winger' does not hold any water when that exact group is abandoning him.

As always, join me in voting libertarian this fall.

[korme]

die young and save yourself

[nfg22]

Not sure who or what you owned.

Clinton had three secretaries of defense: Les Aspin, William Perry and William Cohen.

I'd be pretty confident wagering my life savings and first born that Rumsfeld would not have been Gore's Secretary of Defense.

stand back and learn son, where did I say he was or would be secretary of defense? I said he served under him. If you want I can go read the book I read last summer and tell you where. also he had good favor with clinton and yes gore would have stuck him somewhere nice.

[digamma]

stand back and learn son, where did I say he was or would be secretary of defense? I said he served under him. If you want I can go read the book I read last summer and tell you where. also he had good favor with clinton and yes gore would have stuck him somewhere nice.
Don't bother. In 1998 Rumsfeld served as the chair of the bipartisan Ballistic Missile Threat Commission.

Gore may have "stuck him somewhere nice" in a symbolic role, but if you think that Rumsfeld would have had any sort of prominent policy role in a Gore White House (which is what your first post insinuated), you are probably the only person in America who feels that way.

[cartman]

Just to let ya know gore would have had rumsfield also who served under clinton who you said you would been ok with, so basically its cheney that did it for ya...owned

Umm.. in my post I didn't say only Cheney and Rumsfeld, I said namely, meaning them among others. There are always going to be bi-partisan task forces in any administration. But it's a big stretch to say that asking someone to be a member of a task force and nominating someone to a Cabinet position are similar.

But nfg22's quote is a perfect example of this polarization I've mentioned since Gingrich and Co.'s Contract with America. Once they announced that, any questioning of their platform almost automatically made you "against the people of America. Since we announced we are here to help all Americans, if you are against us, you are standing in the way of progress of the American people." /this is a generalized quote, don't go looking it up verbatim/

A recent example of this was when Rep. Murta was quoted as saying "the direction has got be changed or it is unwinnable" in speaking about the war. Well, the Republicans in the House, mainly Republicans from my home state, focused in only on the unwinnable word, and said he was abandoning the troops, etc. His full quote says nothing of the sort. He wants to succeed, but he doesn't feel the current path being taken is the correct one. Not to say the Democrats don't do the same kind of quote spinning, but you will find many more examples from the Republican side in the House of this type of behavior.

No one party has 100% of the answers. It takes communication and dialog from all sides to find the best solution for any situation. It doesn't mean having to take equally from each side's proposal, but it does mean to at least having to listen to what each side has to say in full. This happens much more in the Senate than it does in the House. Maybe I'm too idealistic, but shouldn't we expect just a little bit better from the 535 elected representatives of our country, plus the Presidental administrations?

[stevew]

Honestly, who the hell are we supposed to vote for in this election?

Bush bloats the government and spends like a 80's democrat. All this war nonsense is a bit shady to me, not on why we went to war, but why we bothered to go to war. I dont think we will ever be able to deal favorably with the Arabs, so why do we bother. We spend all this money liberating Iraq, and they will in turn screw us on oil for the next 2-3 decades or more. They'll undoubtedly just appoint some freaky Ayatollah type guy that will be a pain in our ass. And a lot of good young men have died for no real net gain to us. Seems like all that Iraq war money could have been better spent on fuel alternatives so we could tell the Middle east to fuck off. Does anyone actually have faith that democracy will work in Iraq?

And on the other side, I dunno what the hell Kerry stands for? I know he "is not George Bush!" But he seems to be packing an extremely liberal social agenda. One that I cannot agree with.