Again, the double standard on grand display......rabid anti-Bush opinions and baldfaced lies about Bush lies are the supposed product of thoughtful well reasoned, fully researched observations & readings, but such opinions that are not in agreement must, by design, be directly attributed to neocons & Bush, with no thought what-so-ever
I don't think I have ever assigned such motives to you.
No, not at all.
"Unlike some, I don't check in with any political party or hack group to see what I am supposed to think about the issues", is simply a phrase of endearment
You are free to draw your own conclusions, and I can respect the fact that they differ from mine. Where you run into trouble with me is belittling mine and my thought processes with comments like 'reasonable people think this' or 'logical people think like this', somehow hinting that I am unreasonable or illogical, or otherwise insulting my intelligence.
And I have no problem with people who disagree with the president, or with going to war, or with me. Where you run into trouble is belittling the common sense of believing the overwhelming intel that nearly every leader believed also, and literally demeaning those that actually support the notion that a free and democratic Iraq is a good thing, with the apparent insidious need to bash Bush at every turn, and anyone that supports what common sense also supported. It was common sense to believe that Saddam, left completely unfettered by inspectors, would be indeed restocking his WMD stockpiles. The intel simply validated such. It was common sense to believe that terrorists who perpetrated 911, would also love to get their hands on some of Saddam's WMD. It was common sense to believe that terrorists and Saddam could actually work out arrangements against a common enemy, the U.S. Intel simply reinforced the direct and indirect ties that Iraq had with Islamic terrorists. Yet when that point is brought up, you get all defensive, claiming some personal insult and attack. Yea, the intel got it wrong, but at the time, it was supposedly a "slam dunk", AND it was common sense to think so as well
Yea, there have been moments you'd get my anger up, and I'd ratchet up my condescending tone in response. It's never been meant personally, and if you believed so, my apologies. It's always been aimed at my frustration of who I consider rationally minded folks, allowing a predisposition of being opposed to war and/or to Bush, completely mucking up that rational thought process. Basically seeing what they want to see, and damn any facts to the contrary. I can say that because I have indeed criticized Bush on many tangents, including some regarding the war, especially the initial post mission accomplished phase. I don't recall any of those on the other side concedeing anything to Bush, conceding any accomplishment, conceding any gains made on the war against Militant islam. Instead, I keep seeing the same cries of supposed
lying us into war, he's a war criminal, it's just for the oil, AMBE like that. Some are even salivating at the idea that AlQeada will come back and hit the U.S. again, if not its military forces in the area. Not that you have made such a repetition of such. My issues with you are in the paragraph above, though again, I don't recall even you conceding anything even remotely (+) about Bush & the war. Am I wrong?
