Every time I bring something like this up, I get the same burning sack of crap on my doorstep. I'm not talking about you being against the war just to get Bush, the Republicans, and the rest. I'm not talking about the old lady marching with the sign. I'm not talking about the plumber who votes Democrat because his daddy did. Okay?

I'm talking about the movers and shakers in America, Europe, and elsewhere who have organized this massive offensive against taking down Saddam Hussein. I said:

...The vast majority of prominent opponents of a war on Iraq, including a number of Democrats in Washington, are partisan Leftists to their core, and have no other real motivations. I've been telling people so all along, and more and more people are now seeing it for themselves.

The word "prominent" has a meaning. It's in the fucking dictionary. I'm on this board because I don't WANT to have to guide everyone step by step through things, and because the people here are smarter than average. And still I have to repeat the same arguments over and over again, define my terms over and over again, and repost links that I've posted a dozen times.

Andrew Sullivan:

BUSH'S TERRIBLE BURDEN: And I'm frankly sick of the cheap vitriol directed at this president at this time. God knows the pressure he must be under. To see the shallow and self-interested jockeying in Paris and Berlin at a moment of grave international crisis is to observe politics at its worst. I'm not saying that opposition to Bush and the war policy is illegitimate. Of course not. Much of it is important and helpful. But the coarseness of some of it is truly awful. In some conversations I've had with people who strongly oppose war, I keep hearing this personal demonization of Bush as if he - and not the threat we face as a civilization - were somehow the issue. You hear it echoed in the callow obliviousness of a Maureen Dowd or the brutal lies of Michael Moore or the cheap condescension of the intelligentsia. You see it in the poisonous symbolism of some of the anti-war demonstrators. I keep thinking that this obsession with Bush is a way of avoiding the awful choices in front of us. But the choices are still there.

-- I posted a link that stated that many prominent (there's that word again) Europeans see Bush and his personality as the main obstacle in their supporting an offensive in Iraq.

-- I posted a link< that shows that in England, despite people seeing the reasons for taking Saddam out, they don't like the concept because it's from Bush:

"I've no hang-ups about removing Saddam. I've no hang-ups about joining the United States in military action," one impeccably loyal and Atlanticist Labour MP commented to me recently. "It's following that cowboy which I find so hard to stomach." That's an MP, folks. Somebody with clout. A prominent (very important) Englishman. Not the guy buying chips on the corner. Not Tony. -- The position of the New York Times I explained in the first post on this thread. -- And if you think the Democratic Party leadership (that's LEADERSHIP, not the schoolteacher who votes Democratic) has any other real motivation besides Bush's destruction, and hasn't since 2000, I've got a bridge to sell you. -- None of this massive organized opposition hit the streets during EIGHT YEARS of Clinton military escapades, including military attacks on Iraq. None. Nobody has ever explained this to my satisfaction. I know some of you were at marches a while back. Did you look around? Did you read the signs? Hear the chants? How many of them were directed at Bush specifically? Damn straight to some of these people it's about Bush. I don't know how many of you will go to the march in February in San Francisco. I assume I can remind you who organized it without everyone jumping on me and telling me I'm accusing them of being communists. No, you're not. But you're working for them. If you do go to a march, look at the signs. Listen to the speakers. Is it really about being against a war? Or something else? We'll see what happens with Powell at the U.N. You know as well as I do that he could show widescreen movies of Saddam personally assembling a plutonium warhead, and certain minds will still not be changed. Because to them, it isn't about Saddam and warheads, and never has been.