That he did. But he also blamed one of the major reasons for the war - prior events on September 11th and Saddam's continued building of WMD's - on George Bush Sr.
"All these deaths of U.S. citizens --the death of EVERY U.S. citizen killed by Arab terror in the United States, can be laid directly at the feet of George Bush I." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/786927/posts?q=1&&page=401#448
In addition, he constantly adhered to and espoused a position that the credit for the war belongs not to Bush but to Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney et al.
"I do firmly believe that Bush Jr. is nothing but a figurehead. Bush Sr. is running things; he and Cheney and Rumsfeld. I mean, really listen to the president. He sounds like an idiot." - WhiskeyPapa, 4/7/03
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/886354/posts?page=119#137
Elsewhere he has referred to Bush as a "clown," "idiot," and "retard." So in other words, WhiskeyPapa did indeed support the war but with several qualifications, among them blaming its root causes on a Republican president and denying its credit to the current president for whatever political reasons he may have. Such a position is in fact consistent with most of the liberal Democrats in congress who proclaim their support for the war yet constantly trash Bush.
Incidentially, this is kind of an odd position for a "marxist/socialist/leftist/statinist" to take
And Wlat's an odd fellow. So what's your point?
considering 99.99% of the people who geninuely fit that label despise not only war with Iraq, but war on terrorism in general.
That may be so with many of them, but not all. You need to look no further than Congress if you doubt me, which is full of left wing Democrats who say they are "pro-war" yet constantly trash Bush.
Speaking of the anti-war protestors, have you paid any attention to the types of arguements they give? Let see... Bush is a "ultranationalist tyrannical" dictator who is an "illegitmate leader" and "war criminal" who's been "waging an unprovoked attack on a soviegn nation", trying to "target woman and children", and "overthrow the consitution.". Oh, and let's not forget he's "suspending civil liberties", by having Ashcroft "suspend Haebus Corpus" and "jailing and opressing innocent people" and "destroying freedom of speech" (critizing anti-war protests being an effort to "destroy" their freedom, according to protestors).
So what's your point? The fact that a bunch of goofy war protesters make illegitimate use of the grievances they purport in no way means that those grievances could not happen elsewhere in other situations or at other times.
But since you are interested in comparisons, why don't you take a look at how another wartime congressman behaved when America was being attacked by another militarist dictator. There's a much stronger association between that individual's behavior then and the behavior now of, say, a Jim McDermott than there has ever been between the confederates and the anti-war hippie crowd.
Would Shuckmaster agree with Mexico, France, and other America-haters that Bush is a blood-thristy maniac leadering an evil "yankee war", or would he agree with George W. that we should proudly cheer on the U.S. troops on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln who liberated Iraq?
I cannot speak for him personally, but nothing prevents you from asking him.
Shucky is about as pro-America as you are a "Republican capitalist".
If that indeed holds true, then his patriotism must be quite strong.
Bad GOP, no donut.
Walt