Forums | MacLife

Well said. Your effort to rise above partisanship and just debate the issues in a calm, well thought-out way is, as always, profoundly admirable.

Both articles I posted raised excellent points. Did you even read them? Do you even care? Or are you more concerned with being a snarky biatch?

Way to miss the point.

The point is that you're deriding others for taking a party line stance on the issue of war in Iraq, and you're doing the EXACT SAME THING.  Very hypocritical.

No, it's you as usual that has missed the point. The point was not that you cannot be a liberal against the war, or a conservative for it. The point was that this issue has broken down party lines in many ways, and that it deserves to be discussed without yelling about right-wing/left-wing nonsense.

War is serious business. People will die (not you, you're far too valuable here posting to MAF to risk life and limb on the front lines). It deserves to be discussed on the basis of facts and the issues, not by caterwauling "BAF! BAF!"

Grow the smurf up.

Grow the smurf up.

When you can form an intelligent thought without using expletives, then you can talk to me about growing up.

I had to give you something to respond to besides the actual point.

Yeah, but you gave him an excuse to ignore everything else you said. On the other hand, he would've ignored the point anyway.

Me, I'm for Bush on some things, against him on others, but most of all I'm deeply opposed to this war. But it's much easier to dismiss people like me than actually engage them.

Yeah, but you gave him an excuse to ignore everything else you said. On the other hand, he would've ignored the point anyway.

His last response to you post shows that clearly. I also think it's damned funny that he refuses to address the issue of his own unwillingness to fight a war that he is so gung ho for. Ah well.

To the original topic, my personal experience shows increasing doubt across the political spectrum with Bush and his war. He simply hasn't been able to articulate a good reason for invading Iraq.

I think there's probably an increasing level of discomfort internally at the White House right now: they're committed to doing this, yet starting to realize that they couldn't count on a wave of post 9-11 nationalism and leftover resentment of Hussein from Bush I to make it politically popular to the extent that they hoped. The fact that most of the ideological conservatives that I know are thoroughly disgusted with the Bush administration over Ashcroft's committment to repealing the Bill of Rights isn't helping either.

To the original topic, my personal experience shows increasing doubt across the political spectrum with Bush and his war. He simply hasn't been able to articulate a good reason for invading Iraq.

I think there's probably an increasing level of discomfort internally at the White House right now: they're committed to doing this, yet starting to realize that they couldn't count on a wave of post 9-11 nationalism and leftover resentment of Hussein from Bush I to make it politically popular to the extent that they hoped. The fact that most of the ideological conservatives that I know are thoroughly disgusted with the Bush administration over Ashcroft's committment to repealing the Bill of Rights isn't helping either.

A part of me still hopes that it's all a tremendous bluff. Let's face it, the inspectors are in and doing their job, but it was only the threat of an American attack that got them in. If an effective inspections regime can be worked out, then maybe Bush could take the high road, saying, "invasion is no longer necessary."

Unfortunately, this is highly unlikely. The same argument was made in Vietnam (that pulling out to save lives would make the US look humane), but it was ignored then, and I think it'll be ignored now.

I do think a lot of the partisanship will begin to dissolve over the long term. When you think about it, there's no reason it should be a left versus right issue. After all, it's foreign affairs, not domestic policy.