Argh

[the_gneech]

Okay, look:

1. The capture of Saddam Hussien is not as significant to internal U.S. politics as a lot of people seem to think it is. Swing voters generally swing on economic issues, not foreign policy.
   
   
2. Saddam Hussien did not "magically appear during an election year." What do people think those guys in Iraq have been doing for the past year, standing around with targets on their chests until it was politically expedient to do something? The man was hard to find, for cryin' out loud.
   
   
3. How come if something is perceived as being going badly in Iraq, Bush gets all the blame, but if something is perceived as being good, he gets none of the credit? Is he "Fall Guy in Chief?"
   
   
4. Most importantly, on Saddam's orders, populations were slaughtered; one of his elite guard's favorite ways of dealing with dissenters was to force them to watch family members being raped or brutalized; he basically bled the country dry so his own family and favored lackeys would be rich, rich, rich. If somebody's first reaction upon hearing of his capture is to think, "Uh oh, Bush might get a blip in the polls," I gotta think that person's priorities are way out of whack. It's like the Palestinians saying, "Yes, he was a brutal tyrant, but at least he's Muslim" -- isn't that missing the big picture? There is so much more going on in the world than the incessant bickering of Demidupes vs. Pooblioobs!

Let fly with your flames if you want, I'll put on my asbestos undies. But if you decide to yell at me, at least try to understand my point first.

-The Gneech

Comments

[merryjest.livejournal.com]

You mean Hewey, Dewey and Louie? Yes, I will be very glad to see them go. I do think that Saddam out of his boots is a good thing (for goodness sake, someone hand that man a comb, that's the Mother of All Bad Hair Days).