I'm trying real hard to keep from having a lovefest here, but that was a superb post and what many, probably a great majority, of Liberals as well as Moderates wish had happened, instead of the tragedy that continues to unfold. Just a great post, FB. Keep D&D Civil!!
If I felt that even a significant minority of the troops over there felt that same way I might agree with you. This from another board I visit: "My son just called from Iraq. I haven't heard from him in awhile. He's okay. I can't tell you where he is. He said they got into 'it' yesterday. He asked if anything 'big' was on the news. I said no. For those of you who don't know, he's in the ARMY with the 3rd ID. I'm an ARMY vet. I take great pride in my son's service. He said for the first time today on the phone that he realizes what a great thing this war is for not only Iraq but for the United States. He said , ' Dad we're doing good things over here'. Thank you in advance for your kind words. You don't have to post them. I know how grateful and patriotic most of your are." Yeah, I read the Tillman thread. Tillman's death by any means was a PR disaster for them. It is no surprise that they attempted to mitigate the effect.
I would love to see a well thought-out response from T_J, bigtexx or Giddy to Franchise Blade's excellent post.......
giddy, you should read FB's post again. You're doing what I did to basso earlier today... not "getting it." Keep D&D Civil!!
I'll give it a whirl! What "we" resent is the constant harping on the Bush Administration. That someone can't find anything good to say about an administration that won re-election is just kind of suspicious. Batman finds himself at odds with Bush yet fails to realize that that puts him at odds with the majority of Americans yet, again, it is they (and Bush) who have the problem. It's also the nature of the criticism. I've heard the word "liar" just a few too many times. The president operates in a complex, fast-moving world of high stakes and high uncertainty. Give the man a break if there have been a few bumps in the road. I think you underestimate our ability to accept criticism. It is the unbalanced approach to criticism that causes problems. How is it unAmerican to expect and to ask for some appreciation for sacrifices being made? And I don't just mean token flat statements made in passing. Being a married man, I can certify that it is unlikely for someone to know how you really feel about something unless you up and tell them directly and somewhat repeatedly! I bet Saddam now wishes he hadn't spend a dozen years jerking the UN around. The UN let him call the shots until the US intervened for a greater good.
this is pretty much the problem right here. what some would call bumps in the road, others would call giant chasms.
No doubt... and how many of us have had a job the magnitude of the presidency? It is just too easy to be a critic.
american boys and girls are dying every day for a war i don't believe in. that's why it's easy to be critical. we were mislead by our administration, they should own up that "speed bump."
I am not a critic, I am his employer. Ultimately he does have to answer to everyone of us, therefore if I deem his performance unacceptable, I have the right to b****. I served my country, I believe in our troops, and I want everyone of them to come home as soon as possible safely. I do not believe in our "war" and I feel mislead. That does not mean that I am unpatriotic, that I dont love the men and women serving, and that I dont appreciate everything that they do. It just means that I feel this whole "war" has been a complete cluster****.
The polls have changed since then, and the polls weren't in Bush's favor regarding Iraq anyway. But even if he was in the minority it wouldn't matter. He can criticize all he wants, especially when it is backed up with facts. The supporters of Bush are welcome to provide any contrarian evidence they find, but there is rarely any. Instead they try and attack the messenger. That is what is so bad. Rather than discuss issues and argue evidence, they attack someone's patriotism, and accusing him of loving the terrorists. What is wrong with calling a liar a liar. I think it is fair especially when backed up by the evidence. I think you underestimate our ability to accept criticism. It is the unbalanced approach to criticism that causes problems. It is an-American to attack the messenger by claiming he supports terrorists, and by trying to villify the person as unpatriotic. The old not agreeing with a word someone says but defending their right to say it quote comes to mind. Again I ask you, which has helped create more support for terrorists. U.S. activities like those brought up by batman, or people in this country being upset that our nation would commit the same types of acts as Saddam and others? What Saddam wishes or doesn't wish has zero to do with the argument at hand.
Everyone has a right to criticize. The point here is to question the constant haranguing with nothing good ever to say.
As soon as Bush does something else that I see as positive, I will give him his props. Unfortunately, the last time that happened was around 2001.
What would be going on in the world of terrorism worldwide both above- and under-ground if we were not fighting them in Iraq and Afghanistan? After 9/11 would they have just stopped-- figuring they had gotten their great victory? I think not. Who here thinks so? What is the basis for saying that things are worse now? Worse than the lull immediately after 9/11? Worse than the quiet period prior to 9/11? Worse than the day of 9/11? It is easy to toss these kind of cautions around; now is time to back them up with some solid facts.... or at least some solid reasoning.
It was you who brought Saddam into it; I just put a twist on it. You set up a scenario wherein Bush "could have" avoided this war. I set up one wherein Saddam "could have" done same.
well, i fought my way out, but i appreciate the good thoughts...wha....you weren't talking about me??? you're right, no beers, but i'd be down for a martini anytime.
It is in question whether Saddam could have done the same. There is evidence that shows that regardless of what Saddam did, Bush was going to fix the intel around the policy of military take over.
Are you talking about the dozen years between Gulf War I and II or are you talking about the 3 months between January and March of 2003? I'm talking about the former...
Been driving all day on my way to Providence. This thread got interesting. I'm pretty tired, but I'll reply briefly. texxx: The post was sincere. The funny thing is there is nothing in my first post that I haven't said before. I've said all this and still been called a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer, a Saddam lover. I've been constantly accused of bashing Bush for the partisan sake of it rather than for any of the substantive reasons I've repeatedly cited. I've been told I hate the troops and want to see them fail. All of that is crap and it always was. I also posted the bit that started this thread in another one and was told it wasn't good enough. I was told in that thread that if I didn't explicitly start a thread to mention some good things about the troops, I was clearly a terrorist sympathizer. Hence the sarcasm when I did start the thread, though the sentiment regarding the troops was wholly sincere. And when I did start the thread, the previous assertion about my traitorous ways was retracted. I mean, my god y'all... They were the exact same words as in the other thread. And not only that -- they were things I've said before! But where yesterday I was a traitor, today, finally, after years of saying it, people actually believe I support the troops. I have ALWAYS supported the troops. My (mild) sarcasm was obviously well merited. On any other points, FranchiseBlade summed up my thoughts exactly as per usual. thegary: I said in another thread (the one where I put him on ignore) that I'd still have a drink with basso, but that I wouldn't talk politics with him anymore. I can't talk politics with someone that believes the things about me that he accused me of. In that thread I also said that if he truly believed those things, I had no idea how he could ever drink with me (Here's the thread: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?threadid=96341. Check it out.) and I still don't get that. I also don't get why he would retract any of his over the top, deeply personal, fundamental character bashing statements simply because I repeated myself for the tenth time vis-a-vis the troops. Whatever. basso's a nice guy and I like him but when it comes to politics he doesn't make sense and he said some very crappy things about me that he knows were not true and that he refused to retract, so I'm not going to do this with him anymore.
I suppose it wasn't suspicious when Republicans kept on harping on Clinton after he won in 96 with a far larger margin than Bush did last year? A majority but a very narrow majority anyway we live in a society and under a system that not only celebrates but actually is dependent upon political adversary. Just because a majority of people hold a political view doesn't mean that the minority shouldn't criticise. Under the philosophy of the importance to speak truth to power its a requirement. This country was founded on dissent. I don't know about underestimate by calling it unbalanced that implies that you already don't accept it. Its criticism so of course the other side is going to seem unbalanced. THis goes to the all or nothing patriotism that is espoused by this Administration and its most ardent proponents. "Balanced" to them means the see-saw is sitting on the ground on one side. So instead of demanding that Batman post something positive about the troops why don't those calling him a traitor prove they're balanced by posting something negative about the troops, US military or Admin. Its not at all but in a climate where the government is already touting the good many people feel the need to point out that things aren't as rosy as the state would have us believe. I would say that even if I didn't disagree with the going into Iraq or feel that it was handled badly. In winter of 2001 I spent much of time arguing against those who thought we shouldn't go into Afghanistan. I thought they were Utopian loons but I would never consider them unpatriotic for speaking up against the overwhelming opinion the otherway. Hey I thought you were a woman. Sorry couldn't resist.
