Originally posted by Loftus
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you really GLAD that there is such a mess in Iraq?? Don't you just SAVOR the opportunity to use it to take Bush down?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just out of curiosity - were you hoping that the Iranians hung on to the US hostages in 1980 to help Reagan get elected.
I assume you were not. So why ascribe equivalent feelings to others.
You assume correctly sir.
I am for the security of the USA - I supported JFK when he was president on matters of Cuba and the USSR - even though I had voted against him.
I supported LBJ in the war in Vietnam - even though he is the one president who I actually hate. But as CIC - I gave him the benefit of the doubt concerning the conduct of the war. Years later, it turns out he really was as evil as I thought he was. But at the time, he had my full support.
I supported Carter's attempt to rescue the hostages. I sincerely hoped it would have succeeded and I took absolutely no pleasure in the failure. My political distaste for Carter was, and is, palpable. But I have never uttered a word about the failed hostage rescue as a reason to oppose him.
I supported Clinton in his missile strikes against Al-qaeda, even though many of my friends were saying "wag the dog." My response to them at the time was = "It is always a good time to strike a terrorist camp." I wish he had done it more often. I wish he had eliminated the terrorists on his watch. I wish he had followed through on his "policy" of regime change in Iraq. I would have gladly supported him.
I supported Clinton in Kosovo - my only disagreement was that I did not want him to "take the use of ground troops" off the table. I believe that in war, you do not take away any of your capacity - it makes it easier to negotiate a settlement that way. BUT - I supported him nonetheless and cheered the success.
I was extremely disappointed when the disaster in Somalia occurred and certainly took no joy in the deaths of those 19 soldiers. (As an aside, one of the training facilities here at Fort Polk is named "Stugart-Gordon" in honor of two of the men killed in that tragedy.) It later turned out that Les Aspen had been the one who would not give the troops the support they requested. I do blame him for that, and was glad that he resigned because of it. But it never reached the level of assigning blame to Clinton for a war casualty.
I believe Clinton was the worst president in over a hundred years. I opposed him on any political ground you can imagine. But when he committed our troops, I wished him success and I agonized over any setbacks.
No - I read not only the words posted, but also the tone of the post. If it is filled with mindless hatred of Bush, or if it makes some trivial talking point and parrots it over and over as a substitute for thinking, or if nothing ever credible comes out in the post, then I form an opinion of what drives the poster.
You are free to do the same with my posts. In a forum like this, we are what we post. The words we choose and the commentary we make constitue a "persona" that can be evaluated and disagreed with - or scorned - all driven by the nature of the posts.
That in no way means that I think the people themselves are bad people. Just that the persona they create here is bad.
I have no trouble sleeping at night - I try to make my posting persona just like the person that my friends and family know. You will have to judge for yourself.
