Read this on a website:

"To a large extent, the whole debate over using military force against Iraq is a proxy for how one feels about President Bush."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/861208/posts

I've not heard anyone else put it quite so succinctly. Seems true to me. Whaddy think?

Read this on a website:

"To a large extent, the whole debate over using military force against Iraq is a proxy for how one feels about President Bush."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/861208/posts

I've not heard anyone else put it quite so succinctly. Seems true to me. Whaddy think?

I wouldn't agree with the sentiment or the tone of the article that you cited, at least in my own personal opinion.

Speaking for me and me only, I didn't want to see us get into a war with Iraq for the basic premise of the following reasons:

1. We didn't give diplomacy enough time to work
2. Inspections were being carried out, and WMDs were the main "reason" we were talking about war.
3. I don't like war, and seeing people get killed.
4. Iraq was not a threat to our national security.

It didn't have anything to do with not liking the Bush administration or how I felt about President Bush, but it did lead me to not liking him even more than I had in the past.

Read this on a website:

"To a large extent, the whole debate over using military force against Iraq is a proxy for how one feels about President Bush."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/861208/posts

I've not heard anyone else put it quite so succinctly. Seems true to me. Whaddy think?Gotta disagree too, at least where I'm concerned.

Bush let me down as a conservative. The only thing I think he's done right (and well, actually) is his court appointments.

I think that is incredibly simplistic. The real world is not as polarized as pundits would like it to be.

Read this on a website:

"To a large extent, the whole debate over using military force against Iraq is a proxy for how one feels about President Bush."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/861208/posts

I've not heard anyone else put it quite so succinctly. Seems true to me. Whaddy think?
but I'll add one additional thought.

I listened to Bush's speech both last night and his press briefing today. When I listen to what he is saying, knowing what I know about the situation we are in, I think that he is doing about the best he can with it.

But here is the rub......because of how we got here, and other actions by this administration, I can't help wondering, the whole time I'm listening, if he is telling me the truth, or only what he wants me to hear. Bottom line is, I don't trust he or his cronies. Because of that, he could be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, & I still would have doubts. I don't like it but there it is.

In addition, it's interesting to me that he suddenly, when his poll numbers went through the floor, has become a much more communicative President. The good news is he recognized it, the bad news is it isn't because he thinks it's the right thing to do (or he would have done it all along).

So, I would rephrase your comment to say: " To a large extent, the whole debate over using military force against Iraq is a proxy for whether or not you trust President Bush."

Len

The issue is much more complicated than the article would have you believe. It's not just Bush bad, Bush good. Also the author seems more concerned about celebrities and the extreme far left as if they speak for all of us. They really don't represent the average democrat and frankly we could careless what some actor or singer has to say about policy. We just don't put much stock in their opinions even though we defend their right to have them.

As for Bush it depends on when you started to dislike him. Some could not stand the guy because they knew his policies in Texas. Others watched how he handled his campaign. I did not vote for Bush in 2000, because when I listened to him speak, he just did not seem up to the task of being President. After the election I thought, well here we go a four year caretaker President, he'll just sit in the whitehouse and he won't do much to rock the boat. Boy was I wrong. It started with his stance on environmental and energy policy. Then 9/11 hit. Afghanastan was the correct move, but it became clear right from the get go that what the adminstration really wanted was to invade Iraq. I never believed their reasons and have not found anything since on which to trust them.

The statement goes both ways. Do you mean also that supporters of the war take their position because they identify strongly with the President?

I find the statement a little shallow because it means that no one has any principled reason to be in favor or opposed to the war.

personally I didn't startt to really dislike W until he started the whole BS Iraq war. So it was his inactions (I didn't trust him or Cheney ever,as I never trust anyone that in-bed with the oil industry and the M.I.C.) but their actions showed them to be a bunch of dishonest, lying Corp. lackeys and that's why I hates em, cause they are ruining my country.

Read this on a website:

"To a large extent, the whole debate over using military force against Iraq is a proxy for how one feels about President Bush."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/861208/posts

I've not heard anyone else put it quite so succinctly. Seems true to me. Whaddy think?

Nope. I would oppose the war if it were Clinton's, Gore's, or Kerry's doing too, and I would oppose it just as vociferously.

personally I didn't startt to really dislike W until he started the whole BS Iraq war. So it was his inactions (I didn't trust him or Cheney ever,as I never trust anyone that in-bed with the oil industry and the M.I.C.) but their actions showed them to be a bunch of dishonest, lying Corp. lackeys and that's why I hates em, cause they are ruining my country.

At first I liked Bush, but he quickly went wrong. I don't trust him or his cronies and I think he's buggered up things so badly it's incredible.

Nope. I would oppose the war if it were Clinton's, Gore's, or Kerry's doing too, and I would oppose it just as vociferously.
it were justified on the same reasons.

But what if it were justified by someone you trusted and he presented reasons based on intelligence that he had seen but couldn't reveal that Iraq had WMD and was immently ready to sell them to the highest terrorist bidder?

Len

The statement goes both ways. Do you mean also that supporters of the war take their position because they identify strongly with the President?

I find the statement a little shallow because it means that no one has any principled reason to be in favor or opposed to the war.

Yes, both ways.

The statement does begin, "To a large extent..." Of course something like that could never be universal.

I wouldn't support any admin that sent us towar under such pretenses or pretetxts

Read this on a website:

"To a large extent, the whole debate over using military force against Iraq is a proxy for how one feels about President Bush."


too simplistic. I think it has more to do with whether one thinks the war was neccessary or not and whether Bush levelled with the public about the reasons for the war. Also might have much to do with how one views war in general. A simple Rush Limbaugh or Hannity soundbyte can't capture this one Doug.

No? Did anyone see McLaughlin yesterday? If you did you wouldn't make this statement.

I felt so vulnerable and depressed after the 9/11 then as I watched the President rally the NYC firefighters I vowed to to vote for him which would have been a switch since I voted for Libertarian Harry Browne in 2000. Then came the drumbeats of threats to justify war in Iraq. Even then I passed that off as high stakes gamesmanship. So it blew my mind when Bush pulled the hair trigger and now I wonder what else other action he would justify. I suspect other individuals wouldn't vote for him no matter he did but in my case let's say vows are made to be broken.

I felt so vulnerable and depressed after the 9/11 then as I watched the President rally the NYC firefighters I vowed to to vote for him which would have been a switch since I voted for Libertarian Harry Browne in 2000. Then came the drumbeats of threats to justify war in Iraq. Even then I passed that off as high stakes gamesmanship. So it blew my mind when Bush pulled the hair trigger and now I wonder what else other action he would justify. I suspect other individuals wouldn't vote for him no matter he did but in my case let's say vows are made to be broken.
yup...Bush had nearly every country in the world on our side after 9/11. It could have been the perfect opportunity for international relations--instead he started a war in Iraq and pi$$ed all over that goodwill Heckofajob GW.

I always find it bewildering that anyone could actually believe that, and I don't mean that in a derrogatory way. I just find it inconceivable, it has been one of the surprises since 9/11. I have seen a political view that is unusual to me. I understand these are deep held convictions and beliefs but it is beyond me where some of them come from.

I always find it bewildering that anyone could actually believe that, and I don't mean that in a derrogatory way. I just find it inconceivable, it has been one of the surprises since 9/11. I have seen a political view that is unusual to me. I understand these are deep held convictions and beliefs but it is beyond me where some of them come from.
What are you talking about? Do you deny that most of the world was 100% behind us after 9/11? Or that Bush messed up said relations by charging into Iraq half cocked?

which means you attack one of us you attack all of us. This was the first time this card had ever been played. we could have had an international NATO lead attack on terror with NATO member Turkey (Islamic) helping out. instead he let the little devil of the oil industry sitting on his shoulder talk him into pissing away the opportunity of the century.
we could have ended it with everybody cheering us on and helping us out both man power and dollar wise.
what did we get instead half a trillion in debt, no friends and no change to global terror at best,an increase more likely.

which means you attack one of us you attack all of us. This was the first time this card had ever been played. we could have had an international NATO lead attack on terror with NATO member Turkey (Islamic) helping out. instead he let the little devil of the oil industry sitting on his shoulder talk him into pissing away the opportunity of the century.
we could have ended it with everybody cheering us on and helping us out both man power and dollar wise.
what did we get instead half a trillion in debt, no friends and no change to global terror at best,an increase more likely.Dubya would call ya a defeatist.

Dubya would call ya a defeatist.


and why do I hate his toilet paper (US Constitution)

King George II does what he wanna.

Nope. People haven't disagreed just based on liking or disliking him. Plus Americans give our Presidents the benefit of the doubt. GWB has lost that benefit with about 60% of the country. GWB has been and will be judged based on performance, on how his policies trickle down (or don't) to Joe and Jane Q. Public.

I wouldn't agree with the sentiment or the tone of the article that you cited, at least in my own personal opinion.

Speaking for me and me only, I didn't want to see us get into a war with Iraq for the basic premise of the following reasons:

1. We didn't give diplomacy enough time to work
2. Inspections were being carried out, and WMDs were the main "reason" we were talking about war.
3. I don't like war, and seeing people get killed.
4. Iraq was not a threat to our national security.

It didn't have anything to do with not liking the Bush administration or how I felt about President Bush, but it did lead me to not liking him even more than I had in the past.

Sorry, Mags, gotta disagree with ya..

1. WE DID give diplomacy a chance, over a decades chance, and the man flipped his finger at the US and at the UN.

2. The inspections were a joke, the inspectors were only allowed to go into certain areas at certain times, and many things were off limits. Certainly not what the UN envisioned. Unfortunately, they were too friggin chickenish to ever address the issue.

3. I don't like war myself, but I don't hate war either. It is a necessary means to an end.

4. NOW I agree with you, this is the central part of the objection, at least for me. Still, I think it is a good thing that Saddam is out of power, I only wish we had done it the first time around and potentially have avoided the quagmire we are facing now.

What are you talking about? Do you deny that most of the world was 100% behind us after 9/11? Or that Bush messed up said relations by charging into Iraq half cocked?

Most of the world has always been "behind" us. All the real friends we had went with us to Iraq and are still there with us. I think it is delusional to believe we had so much support after 9/11, what we had was a great deal of sympathy. Sympathy is easy and cheap. Nations serve and protect their own interests and they only form close alliances when those interests coincide. Bear in mind that this isn't a slam on you, just my take on the events that we both viewed. You look through the left side of the glasses and I use the right. :)

I don't view politics as us against them as much as "do the right thing." As a "soft" libertarian I don't have a problem with the so-called Patriot Act. General Ashcroft of Black Helicopter fame has protected the homeland- no further incidents since 9/11 not counting the anthrax mystery. Has the invasion of Iraq protected the homeland? What's the evidence for that? The one thing we know for sure- 2100 lost in Iraq.

Read this on a website:

"To a large extent, the whole debate over using military force against Iraq is a proxy for how one feels about President Bush."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/861208/posts

I've not heard anyone else put it quite so succinctly. Seems true to me. Whaddy think?

Lame Dog, quite lame... :rolleyes:

Antle's article is just another partisan hack job. I would've expected this from the likes of Steamy, not you.

Antle's article minimizes the anti-war stance and presents it almost solely as partisan which is utter BS. His article doesn't address any partisanship on your side of the eisle.

Antle also tries to validate Ann Coulter's rabid insane asinine comments. Right there, you lose, and you lose every moderate with this article. (I question anyone's intelligence who gives credence to Ann Coulter.)

I for one was a Bush supporter. I believed this man when he told the nation that "he didn't believe in using the US military as nation builders." This was a blatant lie. He lied and betrayed the trust of the American people.

I know a "conservative" when I see one, and President Bush is no conservative.

This president wasn't popular w/Dems before he took office, and it's true the war has really exacerbated anti-Bush feelings. But the anti-war stance is not a reflection of how people feel about Bush, it's more about how people feel about this Bush war and war in general. Bush brought this country this war, ergo he gets the brunt of the blame for it's failures. If this were a just war, and WMDs were found, Bush's popularity would've remained at pre-war levels.

No, Antle's article was just more rhetoric from the right. I suspect Antle is more of a Neo-Con writing under the guise of a Conservative.

Lame. :rolleyes:

Give him a chance to think.

Give him a chance to think.

Thinking? Nah, more like parroting RTPs and sound bites.

The "Republican/Neo-Con" message sounds good until you realize that there are lies built into their messages. Taking certain comments out of context is the same thing as lying. Republicans of today are more willing to mislead in order to gain support for their agenda.

Lets face it, if you're too busy to investigate issues, and read, then you probably are more willing to accept their sound bites at face value. That describes most people today who are trying to meet their rent/mortgage payments.

I can't believe he tried to pass that article off as a true statement about the current political environment.

Sorry, Mags, gotta disagree with ya..

1. WE DID give diplomacy a chance, over a decades chance, and the man flipped his finger at the US and at the UN.

2. The inspections were a joke, the inspectors were only allowed to go into certain areas at certain times, and many things were off limits. Certainly not what the UN envisioned. Unfortunately, they were too friggin chickenish to ever address the issue.

3. I don't like war myself, but I don't hate war either. It is a necessary means to an end.

4. NOW I agree with you, this is the central part of the objection, at least for me. Still, I think it is a good thing that Saddam is out of power, I only wish we had done it the first time around and potentially have avoided the quagmire we are facing now.

Oddly, many of us nut-job libbys had no issue with Gulf War I back in the day.

Riddle me this: if the inspections were such a joke, where are all the WMDs ?

3. I don't like war myself, but I don't hate war either. It is a necessary means to an end.


It always bothers me to hear the phrase "necessary means to an end". A quote I heard somewhere that said "the means ARE the end", in this context meaning war is not the path the peace.

And I sure hope you've been in a war before making a statement like that.

It always bothers me to hear the phrase "necessary means to an end". A quote I heard somewhere that said "the means ARE the end", in this context meaning war is not the path the peace.

And I sure hope you've been in a war before making a statement like that.

I have....