Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Canadian Bush Backer Speaks Out

Posted on 12/03/2004 11:47:05 PM PST by aidanmac

A Canadian Bush Backer Speaks Out

Recently I got into a discussion with a few Canadian friends about the Bush victory in the 2004 Presidential election and the ongoing war in Iraq. These friends are well educated and cultured people with a preference for European wine and movies with sub-titles. I suppose they could be described as middle-of-the-road liberals and made for pleasant company at dinner over a bottle of Beaujolais Nouveau ... at least until the subject of George W. Bush came up.

Their reaction to the re-election of the President was unequivocal. Choice of language included adjectives such as "dreadful", "shocking", "appalling" and even "bizarre". Their self-righteousness was more akin to arch inquisitors passing judgement on a proven devil worshiper, rather than dinner companions airing views on a President of the United States.

When I offered a contrary opinion, there was a hush and eyes widened with genuine horror - as though the late hour had induced the first physical evidence of my ‘werewolf within’. One of them even said - "are you feeling alright Aidan?"

You see, I’m one of those anomalies in the Canadian dominion - a Bush backer. A partiality that induces some of my fellow citizens to regard me as ... if not exactly a brown shirt ... then at the very least a tan shirt.

In the majority of Canadian minds the standard Bush caricature reigns supreme; the idiot cowboy with his finger on the trigger of the greatest arsenal of weapons ever assembled in the history of mankind. They buy the stereotype of the phonetically challenged goofy guy with big ears who would seem more at home eating beans under a starry sky than sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office. So why don’t I see this also? Is it possible that an emissary of Karl Rove has slipped a President enhancing drug into our rural Ontario well?

I’ve always been a little suspicious of iconic Presidents. Clinton for example, with his majestic white mane and inclusive body language; master of the language and equally at home with an Ohio pig farmer and the head of the PLO. Reagan with his star appeal and charming malapropisms; shielded from accusations of idiocy by his transcendental belief in "the good" as personified by America. These legendary Presidents almost compelled belief by sheer force of presence. Something the reverend Sun Myung Moon is also rather good at doing.

By comparison, Dubya seems human and entirely fallible.

He reminds us of a guy we might encounter at the local sports bar or rub shoulders with in the bleachers during a ball game. Like most of us run-of-the-mill humans he screws up from time to time, mangles his grammar and even chokes on food at inopportune moments. He has daughters who have been known to act out and a wife who holds it all together with a stoicism that is instantly recognizable to those of us with an appreciation for self effacing, strong willed matriarchs. George is simply 'that guy'... the only difference being that he also happens to be President of the greatest superpower in the history of the planet.

In internet chat rooms and when talking with friends, Bush backers like myself are constantly accosted with the idiot word. "Bush is an idiot" has probably been recited more times than the Hare Krishna mantra, and yet despite a stratosphere that reverberates with the "Bush is an idiot" echo, I don’t buy it.

My reluctance to give the nod to the ‘Bush as idiot’ consensus doesn’t reflect either willfulness or perversity. When I observe Bush speaking off-the-cuff to reporters I see a guy with a folksy style who addresses the issues in a direct down-to-earth fashion. There are occasional moments of levity when he upstages a journalist or offers a witticism or two. Clearly this is a regular guy talking and not an icon, and therein lies the offence. For some, Bush is simply too human and they wonder how a President who looks and sounds like the guy next door, can ever be relied upon to do and say the right thing. But to leap from that assumption to the conclusion that Bush is therefore an idiot, is facile in the extreme.

After 9/11 he rallied Americans with his down-home appeals to the nation. When he stood on the smouldering debris of the towers with an arm around a fireman and spoke into a megaphone, he was one of us ... a surrogate doing what we all wanted to do most ... reach out to a nation reeling in a time of crisis.

When he made speeches at the U.N. and at military academies around the country, his words were of course scripted ... and yet there was nothing about either his diction or his delivery that was suggestive of an idiot. He speaks well, despite the occasional mangled word, and sometimes even speaks with energized power and conviction. All of which makes the ‘idiot fixation’ such an odd phenomenon.

Of course, these detractors will argue that going into Iraq was idiotic and will predictably cite the non-discovery of WMD as proof positive of idiocy. According to them Bush was acting from the most venal of motives; indulging his appetite for a personal vendetta and sacrificing young lives on the alter of his ego. For some reason these detractors feel more inclined to call Bush’s motives into question, rather than examine the despicable nature of the Iraqi regime and the long term consequences of leaving Saddam in power.

The entire world, and maybe even Saddam himself, believed erroneously that the regime was in possession of large stockpiles of proscribed weaponry, so when the larder was fond to be bare it prompted many to accuse the Bush administration of leading the everyone up the garden path. The compelling information that has surfaced concerning links between Saddam’s Baa’thist regime and Al Qaeda is simply disregarded by the President’s detractors. The genocidal excesses and expansionist tendencies of the Iraqi regime are similarly overlooked. Saddam’s funding of suicide bombers is disregarded, as is the presence in pre-invasion Baghdad of that most sinister of terrorist godfathers ... Abu Nidal.

In her book The War Against America, Laurie Mylroie claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was captured in Pakistan, may not in fact be Kuwaiti as he claims, but rather an Iraqi agent. Since Mohammed was an Al Qaeda operational leader, this information could well create direct ties between Iraq and the 9/11 New York attack, and so has important implications. Yet even such potentially damning information fails to move the die hard ‘idiot brigade’ who see in the person of Bush an atrocity that far exceeds even the rape room activities and genocidal excesses of the Baa’thists.

This odd fixation with Dubya’s inner idiot is compounded by the latter’s candid admission that he is a man of faith. Liberals by and large become alarmed at the prospect of God insinuating his way into the affairs of state. Some like Ann Coulter, have argued that this aversion is due to liberals devotion to the 'golden cow' of political correctness - something akin to a secular religion in and of itself. Coulter points out that while hundreds of references to the "Christian conservatives" and "religious right" occur in the New York Times, a Lexis-Nexis search of the entire New York Times archive did not succeed in unearthing even a single reference to "atheist liberals" or "the atheist left". Her not unreasonable conclusion, is that demeaning references are reserved for entities to the right of center.

Unlike his predecessors in the Oval Office who kept matters of personal faith in the closet, Bush has the temerity to refer candidly to God as if He actually exists and doesn’t hesitate to characterize terrorism and the states that support it as evil. Such candor is deeply disturbing to those liberals who view God as a type of quaint metaphor that nobody in the final analysis, takes seriously. Such Presidential utterances shocks them deeply - in much the way the psychiatric nurse was shocked by the ravings of the Jack Nicholson character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

In attempting to get to the roots of the knee jerk tendency to characterize the President as an idiot, I must also make some reference to ‘the line’.

There are some lines, such as union picket lines, that right wingers cross at risk of death and dismemberment. Even though all of the evidence and the call of destiny might necessitate the crossing of a non-negotiable line, the actually crossing of it brings unforseen consequences. Bill Clinton knew this very well. So while he was prepared to make shows of American military power by bombing a factory in the Sudan and ordering an air campaign in Kosovo, he was too much of a liberal to cross the scariest line of all. When Al Qaeda began testing the American will with bombings in the Middle East, most notably the attack on the USS Cole, the Clinton administration declined to act. Even when Dick Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, counseled a bombing campaign against terror camps in Afghanistan, the administration twiddled it’s thumbs and deferred. Opening a front with Al Qaeda was a scary line to cross and Bill Clinton wasn’t about to fire up the arab world and ruin fun times at home, let alone turn himself into a potential target for assassination.

The task of crossing that line fell to George W. Bush, and once he stepped over the line with the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq - all hell, as they say, broke loose. The Iraq attack in particular, in the eyes of many liberals was the act of an idiot. To others, it demonstrated tremendous courage and a willingness to defend the United States at any price. The jury is still out, debating the final verdict. As Jacques Chirac recently remarked ..."history will judge". Of course, it’s easy to play the proctor when you are comfortably ensconced on the sidelines sipping a pernod.

The reflex tendency to dismiss Bush as an idiot trivializes the very real threat of international terrorism. The demonizing of the USA and it’s President simply provides a pillow for the enemy who are greatly comforted by the sight of the western media reducing America to a loathsome caricature.

In the final analysis, war polarizes and compels people to choose sides. The Bush detractors in N. America are operating in shrinking neutral territory. When the final verdict comes in, they may well find themselves further out to sea than they had ever dreamed possible.

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

1 posted on 12/03/2004 11:47:05 PM PST by aidanmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aidanmac
In the final analysis, war polarizes and compels people to choose sides. The Bush detractors in N. America are operating in shrinking neutral territory. When the final verdict comes in, they may well find themselves further out to sea than they had ever dreamed possible.

Most of us remember that Ragan was also thought of as an idiot and a B grade actor for his entire presidency. Now he eclipses all but Roosevelt as the century's greatest president.

Bush's recognition will probably have to wait till after he is out of office, having accomplished a totally revamped tax code, Peace In Iraq and Afganistan, a Palistinian state starting to manufacture something beside suicide bombers and a collapsed European Union.

Maybe, just Maybe some of the left-over left will realize how wrong they were. But don't count on it.

2 posted on 12/04/2004 12:05:49 AM PST by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aidanmac
That's nice... but I'll simply repeat what I tell the "Bush is an idiot" crowd:

People who are stupid, inattentive, or unable to master a lot of complex details very fast & very accurately-- don't fly high-performance aircraft...
...for very long.

3 posted on 12/04/2004 12:06:59 AM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: konaice

President Ragan? Who was VP, Kang?

But surely, I jest.

4 posted on 12/04/2004 12:07:59 AM PST by yayforlater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aidanmac

Gee Whillikers, aidanmac, you figgured it out. Got a grandson named Aiden Mc... Good name. And fuddle duddle the Bush-bashers, as our honorable leader might have said.

Mista Science

5 posted on 12/04/2004 12:10:40 AM PST by mista science
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aidanmac

Bravo for his common sense in a hostile environment.

6 posted on 12/04/2004 12:15:53 AM PST by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aidanmac
The world has turned upside-down.

America is seen as evil and Saddam is protected.

Bush is compared to Hitler and Saddam as the one who was unjustly taken from power.

How much longer will we have to wait for the world to right itself? Americans don't want to be hated the world over, but the world must understand...if we go down in this fight they will go down with us.

How can they hope for a failure in Iraq when it would mean doom for them as well?

7 posted on 12/04/2004 12:28:01 AM PST by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aidanmac; Admin Moderator

Taken from this blog:

8 posted on 12/04/2004 12:31:23 AM PST by Slings and Arrows (Am Yisrael Chai!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aidanmac

"a wife who holds it all together with a stoicism that is instantly recognizable to those of us with an appreciation for self effacing, strong willed matriarchs."

This sentence is a gem of an insight totally lost on the 'rats and their media whores.

The 'rat attacks on Laura as some kind of dopey "xanax" First Lady who never held a "real job" may have cost the 'rats far more than they will ever realize.

9 posted on 12/04/2004 12:39:57 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aidanmac
Great essay, Aidan, and welcome to Free Republic! (Did you lurk long before signing up?)

BTW - you could have mentioned that Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test put him at approx. the 95th percentile of the general population, while Kerry's score put him at the 91st percentile. Or the fact that Bush had an undergrad from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. In fact he lost his first congressional race in Texas to a Democrat who made a big issue out of Dubya's Ivy League credentials, successfully portraying W. as an egghead intellectual out of touch with "regular Texans".

I also think that a major factor driving Liberal's "idiot" view of W is just plain old bigotry - Religious bigotry and Sectional bigotry.

Liberals are without a doubt the most bigoted people on earth. Because of this huge myth they perpetuate about themselves that their support of "affirmative action" and race quotas and reparations makes them the exact opposite of bigoted, they are the last people on earth who would ever be able to look in a mirror and recognize a bigot staring back. Their belief in this myth is so strong that it allows them to slip deeper and deeper into the nastiest forms of bigotry without the slightest chance that they will ever clearly see themselves for what they really are.

They buy hook, line and sinker into Hollywood's perverted views of culture and politics. So they just KNOW deep down in their gut that anyone with a southern accent is the second stupidest form of life on earth. And those who publicly profess faith in Christ are at the very bottom of the intelligence pyramid. Bush is in both categories. And since they never doubt for a second the truth of their bigoted worldview, it is absolutely inconceivable to them that any thinking person could support Bush.

"It's inconceivable!" ..... "It's utterly inconceivable!" ..... "I don't think that word means what you think it means".

10 posted on 12/04/2004 1:00:46 AM PST by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC (The heart of the wise man inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. - Eccl. 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

Oops. Maybe he just forgot to give Kudos....or maybe he wrote that one too? Whoever it was, it's well done.

11 posted on 12/04/2004 1:04:49 AM PST by ALWAYSWELDING
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC

I am a liberal democrat, and I feel that Osama has won... we have abdicated many freedoms, our country is divided and Americans are at odds with each other, and American forces have invaded a sovereign nation and our boms have killed or maimed tens of thousands women, elderly and infant civilians.

I detest Saddam, Osama and I condemn the Palestinian suicide bombers. I just disagree with the method by which we have toppled saddam. But what is more important, is I understand that you are all my fellow Americans, and my neighbors. We work in the same businesses, shop in the same stores, live next to each other.

The insults, denigration, name calling and put downs hurt our country. I work, have children, pay my taxes, I love America. I am not your enemy, democrats are not the terrorists amd do not support them. We need to bridge the divide. We are actually all on the same side, we just disagree on how to go about defending and running our nation. But if I saw you in a wreck on the side of the road, or in a burning building, I would risk my life to save you. I think you would do the same for me, I hope so anyway.

We are all good decent people. I refuse to hate my fellow countrymen. That is our biggest defeat.

12 posted on 12/04/2004 4:54:26 AM PST by Dragginfly (I am a liberal democrat But I am not your enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dragginfly

You have it backwards; it is liberal Democrats who abhorently treat conservative Republicans as enemies. Are there exceptions? Surely. Just as there are to every rule.

What I and my kind are most interested in is, who is an enemy of my country (even unwitting Americans), as my country's soldiers are fighting and dying in the war on terror. If you don't see that war as including Iraq, bigtime, then I don't think anyone can convince you.

The facts of the Saddam Regime as a terror state, both internally and externally, are plainly out there to see.

And as is equally plain, there was no other way to take out that cancer without cutting it out. Saddam & Co. plus their terrorist fellows were never going to do themselves in, nor was France, Germany, Russia, etc. going to lift their dirty fingers that were so stained by Oil for Food.

Your only hope is to let go of the orthodoxy of Liberalism and get real.

13 posted on 12/04/2004 5:31:44 AM PST by txrangerette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dragginfly

I think your opening paragraph is an idicatin of how incorrect you are. From where did you gather the figure that tens of thousands of Iraqi elderly, women and infants have been killed or maimed by American bombs? Isn't this simply a figure that has been constructed out of thin air. I notice you have left men out of the count. Aren't men worth notice.
What freedoms have the American people surrendered in the war on terrorism? Can you point to one freedom that you no longer enjoy since the war began that you enjoyed before the war started? I don't believe you can.
Have you noticed the all out assault on the Christian and Jewish faiths by the liberal Democrats? Is this the lost freedoms you are referring to. The anti-God, anti-morals pimps of the ACLU are doing everything in their power to make this a Godless nation without one point on a moral compass. Anything goes as long as God and moral values aren't involved.
Sign me a conservative Democrat who is sickened by the plilght that the liberal agenda has foisted upon this nation.

14 posted on 12/04/2004 5:44:54 AM PST by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
I teach a course in a university on writing persuasive research papers which emphasizes that in order to persuade people you need to see the other side of an argument so that you can address their concerns and therefore you can best persuade others to take your side.

To illustrate this I had a debate in class to present multiple sides of the argument for invading Iraq. I split the class into three sides: Invading Iraq was necessary, Iraq should not have been invaded and Iraq should have been invaded under certain circumstances. I purposely put people on sides that were contrary to their stance on the issue so that they could better understand an opposing view. I think everybody knows the arguments for the first two sides. Let me explain the latter argument.

These people feel that Iraq should have been invaded only if the political ground work was laid out so that the Arabic world would have a better understanding that this was not an attack on Islam. It has been described that by attacking an Islamic country without getting appropriate buy in from Arabic countries and selling it more or better to the populations of the nations who did participate in the coalition of the willing then the aftermath of the invasion would have been more successful. These people do not want to hand over our foreign policy to foreign governments by any means. They feel doing it this way was important because:

1) It would not be wise to piss off the Islamic world because that could further radicalize them and cause them to join the terrorists instead of helping us by informing on the terrorists. This has actually occurred according to Don Rumsfeld and numerous experts and media reports.

2) They feel that the best way to successfully setup a government in Iraq after our inevitably successful invasion would be for the local population to not feel like we were an occupying power as they currently do, according to recent polls. This thinking believes that because the US supports many governments in the region which the locals feel are despotic then our invasion would be just to install another government that is friendly to the US but not to their population. We all know that the US does not want to run Iraq, but the Arabic population has such ill will towards us because of our perceived favoritism towards Israel and other perceived despotic regimes that they don't believe President Bush when he says that we are not interested in controlling Iraq and that we will leave as soon as possible no matter how much he says it. Just because we install a democracy might not be enough because the Arab world might still look at it with a suspicious eye because mainly the US set it up and how can they trust us given what they perceive as our poor track record of supporting despotic regimes.

These middle of the road people felt that we needed to address this credibility problem and it was not addressed. I teach that when making a persuasive argument you need to establish credibility first by showing that you understand their issues. President Bush did this in his presidential campaign when he talked about mainstream values and based his positions on his Christian faith, therefore voters got a better feel of where he was coming from. The vote was so close that John Kerry could have won if he would have done a better job of establishing his credibility earlier on instead of letting the Bush campaign define him early. But, Kerry is a poor campaigner and did not do that.

I know it is a tough nut to crack, but these middle of the road people feel that if we cajoled these Arabic countries better then we would have had more of a Muslim face on the invasion of Iraq just like we had in the '91 Gulf War and therefore would have had a better chance of setting up a government post invasion. Many of Iraq's neighbors would have loved to have taken Saddam down. After all, he was a threat to them also, but these middle of the road people position is that the Arabic countries did not overtly support us because they were afraid of their own populations. The middle of the road people feel that the US should have done a better job of getting the Arabic countries to support us just like they did during the first Gulf War.

These middle of the roaders also think that because we did not get the buy in of the local populations of the members of the coalition of the willing these countries did not have as much resolve as we do. This was demonstrated when the Philippines pulled their troops when a Filipino was kidnapped. Their local population threatened to topple the government with protests. The first rule of many leaders is to not do anything that would get them kicked out of power. The Philippines pulling out gave the terrorists in Iraq an opening to reek more havoc on humanitarian agencies and other countries' forces. That is also the stated reason why Poland plans to pull out of Iraq in 2005.

This was not helped by disbanding the Iraqi army which Paul Bremer now admits was a mistake. Even our allies, the Kurds, feel like the US switched from becoming a liberator to an occupier when Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army. The Kurds feel that a better job of weeding out the true Baathists in the officer ranks would have been a much better tact to take.

This view believes there was a good way and a less fruitful way to invade Iraq and the manner that was chosen was not a very fruitful way as has been illustrated with the current events in Iraq according to them.

In regards to which side demonizes which side, I personally feel that both sides do a pretty good job of demonizing and abhorring the other side. Both sides feel they are in the right and that the other side does not listen to reason and logic. Maybe both sides need to just chill out and take a step back. But, unfortunately that is not how it is going to play out in the Congress. Republicans feel emboldened to enact what they want and Democrats will just attack more due to these tactics. You might remember this is what happened between '93 and '94 when the tables were reversed. Back then editorials were written that said that Republicans were going to become a long time minority party. If Republicans get too aggressive then they could end of having the tables turned on themselves.
15 posted on 12/04/2004 2:36:23 PM PST by netengineer (RE:A Canadian Bush Backer Speaks Out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dragginfly

Sniff, Sniff, do I smell a RAT?

16 posted on 12/04/2004 3:05:51 PM PST by Lancer_N3502A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aidanmac

Get new friends.

They have contracted the Michael Moore virus. They cannot be reached. They will make themselves look absolutely stupid to defend what they think. They will spew forth the most outrageous, irrational nonsense imaginable.

Move on...say good-bye. It isn't worth it. This runs much deeper than politics.

17 posted on 12/04/2004 4:10:24 PM PST by JudyinCanada (Five-fingered Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dragginfly
I am a liberal democrat,

Welcome to FR, and thank you for your reply to my post.

our country is divided and Americans are at odds with each other

Agreed. And why is that? GWB's response to terror was to attack terrorists and terrorist-harboring and terrorist-abetting countries. Democrat's response to terror was to attack Republicans. Which is more divisive to our country? GWB was compared to the Nazis in a film short on one of George Soros's many pet organization's websites. Would you consider that divisive? Numerous well-known Democrats have called our President an "idiot". Here in Colorado we were flooded with ads showing a lookalike to our GOP Congresswoman picking the pocket of a corpse in a funeral home and of a soldier fighting in Iraq

You are right in saying that our country is divided. It is too bad you didn't follow that sentence with an apology on behalf of your fellow liberal Democrats for the fact that we are so sharply divided.

our bom[b]s have killed or maimed tens of thousands women, elderly and infant civilians.

You have been sadly misinformed. But at least you are making an attempt to correct the situation by being here of FR. I am of course hopefully assuming that you will stay and frequently read what FR has to offer, and that you didn't just come for a quickie drive-by shooting.

18 posted on 12/04/2004 10:32:05 PM PST by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC (The heart of the wise man inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. - Eccl. 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Well, you folks think everything is one sided, you are so self righteous that you ignored my attempts to find middle ground. The sad truth is both siodes bash each other. I have been spit on, called a traitor, threatened with violence... by conservative republicans, and for quietly and peacefully showing my support at a vigil. So it goes on on both sides. I admit that, why can't you?

I would still risk my life to save any of you if the situation presnted the opportunity.I get the feeling you would let me die.

As for the tens of thousdands of civilian deaths, are you really denying it? At least tell my why it is worth it, that war has a cost, that it is for our freedom. But break your denial. My brother is there right now. I have read his letters. Bombs kill people. My brother is in the army and at least he admits that. There has been mass casualties, but how would you know, the "liberal media" does not show any of it in America. None, it is whitewashed, blacked out.
You folks are filled with hatred. You despise "liberals" but feel above any form of criticism at all. If my brother is killed in this war will I get even a particle of respect then? My post was polite and decent.

You all completely ignored my ststements that America needs to come together. You enjoy the division it seems. Do I have a right to oppose this war without being an idiot, or a traitor? I am an American, I am proud of that, and I demand my right to an opinion without being insulted. Shame on you. Am I an evil person because I am concerned with the children being killed. I have seen the pictures, it is happening, dispute the numbers, but at least accept that fact. Cn't I noppose Saddam and Osama without agreeing on the strategy? There are military people who opposed this war, are they traitors and fools too? I thought just maybe I could be involved in a dialogue here without being attacked. I was wrong. God help America. I pray that some day we will be able to live and disagree together in a civilized manner without hatred and insults being hurled back and forth. I refuse to fight with my fellow countrymen. My husband warned me about posting here, I was wrong and he was right. I am still a liberal democrat, and I am still not your enemy...maybe I am wrong, let me rephrase are not my enemy. You are my neighbors, and I am trying to respect you. More than you are offering me I gues.

19 posted on 12/04/2004 11:56:35 PM PST by Dragginfly (I am a liberal democrat But I am not your enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dragginfly

before you criticise me for my typos I have multiple sclerosis. I am not seeking any pity, I need none, but that is why my typing is sometimes off. I want you to know how much we liberals all fear you. We fear being shot or attacked for our beliefs. I wish there was a way to let you see through my eyes so you would know that I am a good person, and a proud American, and that I just have a different opinion. I apologize for the signs with Bush as a nazi, and for the boneheads on our side who do and say such things. To think that we all support that stuff is crazy and innaccurate.

I have looked at your websites. You laugh at us, call us names, make fun of our ethnicity, make fun of our weight and appearance. And then you have the gall to quote Jesus Christ in the next breath. No, I will not shrink from the discomfort and insults. I will continue to attempt to communicate decently, and try to mend the dicision. It hurts our shildren to see such hatred on bith sides. Both sides are equally guilty, just like with Israel and Palestine. Both sides make mistakes, both sides have boneheads who do terrible things. I apologize for ours, and ask your forgiveness. I am an American, and I am afraid of you folks. Perhaps you like it that way, I don't know. Some of you, anyway. Sorry for posting so girthy, I will go away and let you have your website. God Bless America, both red and blue America, and especially the true America which is purple. God Bless You all.

20 posted on 12/05/2004 12:09:09 AM PST by Dragginfly (I am a liberal democrat But I am not your enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson