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

[scixual.livejournal.com]

It is very easy to get so worked up with "I hate Bush (or anyone)" that I cannot see the things he does right -- or that those who oppose him do wrong.

You are emminently sensible. Or eminemly.

[joeygatorman.livejournal.com]

3. It isn’t easy being President. Wars have stressed out a few Presidents. I noticed Bush stumbled a few times during his address, especially the part where he says that the people on the side of Iraqi freedom had “lost their leader.” But you’re right: One person shouldn’t be blamed for the actions of many more.

4. That reminded me of a Time article months back about an Iraqi who had to witness his family members being raped and killed after the man made a joke about Saddam’s mother. Did you read it?

-Gatorman

[richardf8]

I'll just address point 3.

Bush gets the blame because he initiated the action, without his decision to go to war, the troops wouldn't be in harms way.

He doesn't get the credit because, well, it wasn't him crawling into the spider hole.

And for the record, I do think the capture of Saddam is unequivocally good. But I still find Bush a troubling president.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Your post was sensible and reasonable.

Thus, you may be in for it. Good luck!

===|==============/ Level Head

[m0nkeygrl.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah. The president is a professional scapegoat. It's in the job description. ;)

Sorry if my post was part of what caused you to froth. Sensible, educated people see your point. However, there are few of those. My post was lamenting armchair patriotism and the uneducated masses.

[ramalion.livejournal.com]

1. Totally agree there...
2. Same there...

3. Really, I don't belive he should get any of the credit of the capture though. He wasn't out there doing the work, he wasn't out there putting his life on the line to collect information. All the credit should be given to the 600 soliders that actualy went there and pulled it off and to the other soliders in Iraq that constantly have their lives put at risk.

He should, however, get a lot of the blame because it's his policy, the policy of cabinet, and the policy of his party that's put us and our soliders into this mess of Iraq.

4. Totally agreed...Saddam was a very bad person. The world is a batter place now that he is out of power. However, the determination to remove him from power shouldn't have been made by one person or government.

[chipuni.livejournal.com]

Point #1 is especially true. Remember Bush's father. Though the economy is growing, it's not trickling down into new jobs. Though we might be happy that Saddam has been found (and, personally, I'm much happier that he will go to justice than become a martyr), people vote on their pocketbooks.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

I agree with you whole-heartedly on almost all of that. However, our involvement in Iraq has been a high point of political debate since Bush first mentioned it, so it cannot be ignored that we got Saddam when it comes to the election, which is so close at hand. I think this is very unfortunate. But I appreciate what our CmdrChf is doing to not stick his neck out for the pollsters on it! *watches the speech again*

Besides, most polls are saying Bush already has the election in the bag, anyway. When polled against a Democratic opponent, he only gets 30%. But when polled against any specific candidate from the Dems, he wins over 80%. Hee!

But anyhoo... you're right. The arrest of Saddam Hussein did not happen in a vacuum. And anyone arrogant enough to think it was staged to be at this particular moment in time is pretty damn sick. Like Palestinians dancing at the death of thousands of Americans, or Afghanis saying "he's an Iraqi and deserves to live free in Iraq!"

-=TK

[rigelkitty.livejournal.com]

Yay! I'm innocent of these charges for once! I didn't say nuthin'! :)

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

Bravo, Skipper!

[carlfox.livejournal.com]

Personally, I feel getting Saddam out of circulation is a Good Thing. Now, how they handle him from here, that concerns me. He needs to be fairly tried and convicted, and I'm not sure this administration and their colonial provisional government in Iraq can do that.

This does not change my opinion that the president is a twit, and that this country can do sooo much better. (Actually, the president doesn't annoy me nearly as much as Ashcroft, Rumsfield, and Cheney do; those guys I'd love to see get the boot...like, say, in early 2005? :)