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

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

Yes, well, cutting through all the personal insults you enjoy throwing at Mr. Bush, your statement that the worse Bush does, the better, implies that it's fine and dandy if the country goes up in flames, just so long as it gets Bush out of office. This is not a view I share.

I want the U.S. to be a prosperous, safe, and free country, regardless of who is in office, myself.

-The Gneech

[merryjest.livejournal.com]

That may be so, but I'm a realist: With Bush in office, it ain't gonna happen. Therefore, the faster he gets out, the better. Whether it be a Republican or Democrat or an independent Candidate that has the capacity, I would cheer them on. Right now, though, I do not see many candidates I WOULD cheer on, but most of them are preferable to Bush 2004 (by most I mean FEASIBLE candidates. Pat is, of course, what I like to call the Bat-mite of elections. He's there for humoristic appeal, as well as most of his ilk). Edwards supposedly is a good candidate, but I am very suspicious. The man is too charming and has a squeaky-clean feel to him I do not trust on a politician. I do not believe Bush can make the U.S. prosperous, or safe- although at this point, considering what the present and previous presidents have done with foreign policy, I do not think 'safe' will be a word we'll ever use again with all security. I want to see this country prosper as well, but I have never for a moment believed that Bush was the man to do it.