So, you think it's personal?
There are people out there — reporters, pundits, Senators and Congressmen — who hate the President and the Republican Party so deeply and with such passion that they would rather see the United States defeated and Iraq collapsed into a failed state than support what they see as George W. Bush’s war. --Jeff Harrell
Perhaps the best thing GWB could do for Iraq would be to say he's got a message from God that we should pull out of Iraq tomorrow. Support for the war should skyrocket.
Posted by Donna B. on
Tuesday June 28, 2005 at 11:45am 2 Comments 0 Trackbacks (Military, Political Rants)
Perhaps if Jeff Harrell shut off his computer and actually spent some time listening to those people who really have a legitimate and fundamental problem with the Iraq invasion...he might drop the rhetorical flame throwing and actually understand us.
Karl Rove, Harrell, Malkin, Coulter and even bloggers like LaShawn Barber really don't seem to care that over half of Americans have a problem with Iraq that has nothing to do with a personal dislike for Bush.
It's the policy, stupid.
All those using comparisons to Hitler, chimp comparisons, all the DU posters who use * instead of his name - for all those people, it's personal. It's hatred. It's sick. And they've co-opted the Democratic Party message.
There are plenty on the other side for whom it's personal too. I find the "liberal haters" just as sickening.
I also keep remembering when I asked several personal friends, and a few on message boards to give me reasons to vote for Kerry, and none of them -- NONE -- came up with anything more than "he's not Bush".
They forced me to investigate Kerry for myself, and what I found of substance, I disliked - his voting record on military funding, his testimony before Congress about Vietnam, his failure to sign the 180, his failure to recognize that his behavior "mocked" gun owners and hunters (I don't think he intended to do any mocking), but most of all - his failure to present any specifics of his "plan" for Iraq and terrorism, other than to treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem.
Was Bush that much better? Not really, except that his policy included using the military and law enforcement against terrorism, his rhetoric included classic liberal ideals in which I've always believed, ie - the human desire for and right to freedom is universal.
Believe me, there's ample room to bash his policies and plans toward that idealistic goal, but I don't see that either the "personal haters" of Bush, or the "personal haters" of Republicans in general, or the Democratic Party is doing that.
Show me. Prove me wrong. Nothing would delight me and give me hope more than to know that the Democratic Party is not in shambles.