You asked for this! Well, your little, often overshadowed voice of reason did -and so I had to oblige.

Comments interspersed:


Unfortunately, it has become all about Bush, and Bush himself is responsible for that.

He's personalized the issue of war with Iraq, by refusing to condescend to present objective evidence

Would you play fast and loose with the lives of your friends and coworkers -only to try and convince folks who don't want to be convinced? People who tattle on Saddam are in perilous enough positions as it is. Exposing them to Saddam is like signing a death warrant.

Satellite data wont convince you at all. Be honest with yourself for a change. I could put photos of trucks and scientists carrying material out and leaving a suspected chemical weapons factory half an hour before an inspection & show you a cell phone link between one of the weapons inspectors and the Iraqi ministry twenty minutes prior to that and you would still say it doesn't prove anything! You have already ignored the "forgotten" chemical weapons shells because they were "empty." The fact they were not listed on the UN declaration troubles you not a whit - at least not so much as to overcome your hatred of George Bush.

we'll see whether Colin Powell presents real evidence, or another smoke-and-mirrors show at the UN); by fudging and misportraying evidence like the aluminum tubes;

The aluminum tubes can be used for enriching uranium. Do you think the Iraqis are completely stupid? Of course they can pretend they wanted to replace old rockets that's why they call the list "dual purpose purchases" so that some of the items can be used for one thing while the rest make their ways to the uranium enrichment facility.

Why do you think they let those rockets rust?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A man who can afford 100 palaces can't afford to cover up the rockets from the weather? Get real! This was all part of a calculated misconception. It's clever enough to fool those who want to believe in Saddam's innocence. You give this guy the benefit of the doubt as if he was some normal person!

You wouldn't last a day in Iraq. Saddam would have you coming and going. He could hand you pictures of his latest torture victims and tell you it was shots from an upcoming film and you would be smiling and saying, "when does the film come out?"

by citing the attempt on his daddy's life as one reason for war;

Would it be more valid if they had made an attempt at Carter's life? Or Clinton's?
Is your hatred of the Bush family so intense as to ignore the fact that some foreign dictator tried to kill him?

and by personalizing the war as directed at one man, Saddam Hussein, most notably in his SOU speech. He's deliberately framed the issue as "you either trust Saddam Hussein, or you trust me."

And you trust Saddam Hussein! Which is the position of most all the antiwar folks!


Many people, myself included, resent being presented with an artificially binary choice that tries to deprive us of the freedom to judge for ourselves and back us into a predetermined corner. I don't respond to arguments targeted at my gut to the exclusion of my head, nor do I respond at all well to that blatant intellectual bullying.

You should hear yourself here! An "artificial binary choice!" Artificial is pretending to slap the hands of a torturing dictator after he turns against America and his neighbors with sanctions and inspections - forever enabling this dictator to grow ever bolder with his mad ambitions and his sadistic sons whims.

Bush has gone to the UN. He has even offered Saddam exile. It's not about war - or oil. It's about a murdering psychopath on the loose with tons of chemical weapons, a desire for nuclear ones and a big vendetta against the US for booting his ugly mug out of Kuwait.

Saddam plays you antiwar folks like a violin, singing his oil theme song, mimicking Tariq Aziz's talking points and
generally using the left as patsies.

I'm not willing to get sucked into the George Bush cult of personality; supporting the office of the President is not the same as supporting the man temporarily holding that office.

Yes, that is very clear! You dislike Bush and so anything he does as President is reprehensible, deceptive and his rhetoric is "artificially binary!"


This is one of the most dangerous rhetorical drums being beaten by the Right today:


It's about destroying George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Beyond that it is about destroying America, and the West in general.


The Republican Party is not America. George Bush is not America. This is nothing less than a reprehensible attempt to equate principled skepticism of the policies of one man and his political party with treason against the United States.

When you find yourself defending a torturing dictator responsible for the deaths of 200,000 people, just because you want to believe the war is about oil or that Saddam isn't as bad as evil George says or that evil George is the real problem, it's not treason against the US - it's more like aiding and abetting crimes against humanity.


Nor do I appreciate your assertion that asking reasonable questions about the President's intentions and plans for the country "isn't about any principled positions at all". Buy a vowel, Tom.



You couldn't have said anything better designed to harden my opposition to George W. Bush and his policies. You've helped me to see that it's about more than protecting America against nebulous foreign threats; it's about protecting America from a palpable domestic threat.



That's so typical. What exactly is that "palpable domestic threat" that Bush poses? Assassination attempts on former US presidents are "nebulous" as are stockpiles of WMD, so I'd be curious as what qualifies in your mind as a palpable threat? Are you going to pull a Bowser and claim that Bush is the religious rights robot and Ashcroft is about to put a big cross on the US flag?

Are you going to give us the fringe view that the "Bushies" are ready to declare martial law and take you away from your home for being anti-Bush and for not being a registered republican?

Are you going to whine about the abused civil rights of terrorists and those plotting to kill thousands with WMD?
Is that the "palpable domestic threat?"

Le t me know when I'm getting warmer.


Thank you for clarifying my patriotic duty.



--Robert

(Sigh...Tom, I know that you don't often set out to deliberately offend people. But it's clear that sometimes you don't stop to consider the effects of your intemperate remarks on other people. Do you understand how deeply you've insulted and impugned the integrity of millions of people who just don't deserve that kind of treatment?)



Unfortunately, you personalized Tom's remarks. His remarks do describe a whole bunch of people who would not mind Saddam putting the electrodes to some poor chaps genitalia in Iraq if they thought for a moment Bush would feel the pain.

Pardon the graphic description but it gets the message across pretty clearly.

This is the depths to which the left has fallen after their stunning election defeat. They are so despondent and desperate to defy Bush and seek redemption for their opposition to him that they embrace defending the regime of Saddam Hussein from removal as some example of moral fortitude!

That is how far the left has fallen. Look at the nomination of Pelosi. Seeing her pout and shake her head and laugh an insane laugh as Bush spoke is the embodiment of the left - they have gone to the far extremes. The moderates now lean right and so the outspoken remnants of the left are synonymous with those who embrace the ideology of the communist party. That may seem harsh - but it sadly is very true.

I read over several hundred pages of posts from democrats.com and other anti-Bush websites after the election and it was clear to see the commies were there in force sweeping up the depsondent and demoralized and catching them up in their defiant rhetoric. They needed to be more extreme! More in opposition to Bush! More protests! More civil disobedience!

In many ways the left has given its leash to the extremists and the anti-US anti western manipulators who fund ANSWER, the Green Party and the other groups and personalities who offer to represent (aka exploit) "the weak" and the depressed democrats.

You're too smart to let your hate or dislike of somoene broadside you and let that happen to you right Robert?

Or did my post simply further make you want to go out and support the next ANSWER march and pick up a few more copies of The Communist Manifesto?

;-)

SDAI-Tech1