In a thread below, it seems like certain assumptions are either made or assumed about my stance on Liberia as a member of the set of 'Bush Haters'. I find this problematic, as the person who seems to be making the assumptions also complains about how blinded 'Bush haters' are.

The set of people who opposed the war in Iraq are diverse, and to paint them all as 'Bush Haters' is very odious to me- as many of us (and I like to include myself here) had *deep* moral and ethical misgivings about the war (and if someone still has my first H'zone posts around, those concerns are expressed in black and white there). To say that we took our position, maintain our position and argue our position because they hate Bush is a gross insult. It is to say that our moral, ethical and political positions are predicated on the hatred of one individual.

In essence, I think the conservative side of the Hzone is trying to cast themselves as moderates, give Bush every reasonable and unreasonable benefit of the doubt, and then claim that those who don't simply are doing so because they 'Hate Bush'.

Personally, I never felt much warmth for Bush. I appreciated the way he handled the first part of the aftermath of 9/11- aside from his dig-interrupting visit to GZ. I thought his administration dismantled Afghanistan in a cool professional manner that set a precedent for our troops-in-the-field and inspired the American people. I disagreed with the personalization of this down to Bin Laden, but that was about the obly real problem I had with this Administration outside of Domestic policy (Patriot act included).

When this war came about, I sat and I evaluated it for quite some time before I took a position. I believed that there may have been WMD in Iraq, but I could NOT find any support for the notion that there were terrorist ties with Al-Qaeda, nor that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United States of America or her allies (in part because of their behavior over the last 20 years, and also in part because there was no measure of intent or intention in the absence of proved terrorist ties or discovered plots). I chose to argue against this war on that basis. This had nothing to do with Bush.

And yes, I was bitterly angry with the Bush Administration for taking us into a war that not only I consiidered unjust, but most of the planet considers unjust. I was also angry at the paucity of evidence for the terrorist ties. I was angry at how he treated the Allies that rallied to us in the aftermath of 9/11 and helped us in our fight against Al-Qaeda. I was disgusted by the complete lack of dialogue on the issue and I was horrified by the endless flag-waving tied up with the proposition of invading Iraq.

Later, when it became clear that there were never (at least during the 21st century) any WMD in Iraq, I felt mortified. I doubt the integrity of those who don't feel the least bit angst-ridden about the implications of this (possible and most likely probable) event.

So, yes, by now I do indeed hate Bush. But I hate him BECAUSE of this Iraq issue. I don't challenge him on the Iraq issue BECAUSE I hate him. I put my country ahead of Bush- even more so now that I think so very little of him.

I have seen anti-war folks be called Biggots, Cowards, Kooks, Nuts, Idiots, Fools, Immoral, etc on this board. I have seen nasty things said about them for the simple reason than that they hold a view that is opposed to what the majority of the 'longtimers' and conservatives here think. In short, half the Hzone has treated them like shit scraped off the heel of a vulture. I have seen myself and others called 'arrogant' and etc because we (1) don't take any shit (as per above) and (2) insist that empty opinion and faulty logic do not justify anyones political perspectives- especially if it is about the organized killing of people (war). I have seen Don be called a Troll because he brings attention again and again to one central fact: We invaded another country, under the directing of our Chief Executive, for causes that have turned out to be wholly and entirely false- and false to such a degree that any rational person should feel motive to inquire into the matter.

This is fine. I think it really speaks volumes about the failings of this group, but whatever. Its still fun to come here and debate.

But it REALLY irks me that (some of) the conservative members of this board wish to relegate all voices of dissent into the puddle 'Bush Hater'. Its wrong. Its insulting, its untrue. Worse- you are no longer simply slandering their character- you are making judgments on their cognitive content. You are saying you don't have to listen to what they say not because (or in addition to) them being morally and personally defective, but because they are all acting in service of some motive.

Its a 'vast conspiracy' thing.

I can not speak for the rest of us so-called 'Bush Haters', but I can say that *I* have a position on Liberia and I can state it, and it probably is NOT what you think. The rest of the 'Bush Haters' have their own opinion and JUST MAYBE you folks should solicit it before you assume. Because JUST MAYBE someone who disagrees with you on Iraq MIGHT have (in general) principled and intellectual basis for forming their opinions.

Davin L.