a new battle cry

[Burgold]

Actually, it's really an old one. In the past few weeks I've noticed a trend, a trend that has almost a one:one relationship on this board. If someone questions the war, the economy, education, practically anything they are called a "Bush hater" This reminds me of how many people chose to label anyone who was against the President or the war earlier this year "anti-american". Question: Does painting with such a broad brush make it easier for people to turn their minds off and simply discredit all problems be they fiscal, millitary, or political or do those who relentlessly label truly believe that any questioning of decisions, news, events, have nothing to do with the decisions, news, and events themselves, but are wholly a political machination designed to eliminate Bush from office?

[fansince62]

burgold...yep there is some labeling going on that isn't meritted. but the ringing thought is that many of these posters really have nothing constructive to add either. and that is a perception you can't argue is right or wrong. but one I'm willing to bet many accept.

after thought: and the language employed very often suggests an unobjective emotionalism driven by Bush hatred. you are denying the obvious if you don't see this.

another after thought: and this is ok...because others (including myself) have done the same vis the Clintons. and, i can promise with near certainty, are going to do the same once the next election campaign heats up. for my own part, I expect kerry to rise, so I am alreay prepariung all manner of invective, calumny and innuendo - just keeping in tune with the times!

[Burgold]

I actually do think you are right that some of what is being pointed out is more agenda driven than concern driven. The "Bring 'em on" thread is a good example. Was it a poor choice of phrasing... yup. Was it likely to truly incite a fire... probably not unless the listener was really close to the tipping point. But the comment in and of itself is really pretty minor. Probably had a minor effect. The ends justify the means argument I do feel is pretty weighty on the other hand. If he chose to selectively include data that he knew was iffy at best and likely incorrect that speaks to something. Again, this wasn't the main catalyst to war, but it the integrity of an administration is important. That's where I think Nixon and Clinton failed... they damaged the prestige of the Presidency. Should Bush be proven to shade information or disregard fact to pursue his agenda I think that too will damage the prestige and legitimacy of the President's office.

[fansince62]

as to the damage part......I'm conflicted...sometimes one does what one has to do....but in the main...I agree

.....one of us should be worried!!!