Go to Pearl's Position
- Add a comment
- Go to What's With the Bush-Bashing? Help Me Understand!
Wow, Pearl1,
What a powerful post. You voice your position and your opinions very well, and quite eloquently. I'm glad that we have similar names here on Blogit. It's unlikely that we'll agree on every point, but I sure like the way you say what you say. Thanks. :)
posted by
BlackPearl1
on September 4, 2006 at 9:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Bush-Bashing
Thank you for commenting positively on my military service; the honor was all mine!
What you're saying makes sense. I too watched what went on in the Florida vote, but when your brother is the governor, that kinda makes the outcome, uh, a sure thing. I agree that Mr. Bush BARELY carried the election.
Having had my head buried in the armed forces sand for 17 years, I've been wondering what the people think about his performance as Commander in Chief. As an officer, I never trusted Mr. Clinton. He was so mired in personal troubles of his own making, he gave no thought to the men and women who wore the uniform of their country; he was too preoccupied by Monica's blue dress than with my "dress blues."
From my small town in the mountains of Montana,
Pearl 
posted by
Pearl1
on September 4, 2006 at 8:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Thank you for your service!
Not to mention your terrific post. What it comes down to in my opinion is that the Democrats believe President Bush somehow stole the 2000 election. One regular poster seems to think he appointed the Supreme Court judges who threw out the challenges to the Florida results so he could be elected, apparently he forgot that Presidents-elect can't do a blessed thing until inauguration except gird their loins for the ordeal about to befall them, get their potential cabinet members lined up, and other such preparatory measures.
The Democrats have let this resentment fester until it is expressed in the extremist rhetoric you see and hear now. They yearn for the good old days when presidents (like Bubba Clinton) sacrificed principle and national security for popularity, be it in the public opinion polls or with an intern. They want a return to prohibitions on government agencies sharing intelligence on terror, to treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue in which attacks are responded to rather than prevented.
You can see lots of discussion about this on my blogs at http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/WriterofLight/ and http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/WriterofLight1342/.
As for the war, WMDs, deposing Saddam and eliminating him as a funder and armer (?) of terrorism, and establishment of a constitutional democracy in Iraq were all cited as reasons for the invasion. The WMDs are a thorny issue, because even Clinton believed Saddam had them, as did much of the world intelligence community. The great question few people have the guts to ask is this: If he did indeed have them, as Clinton, George W. Bush and so many others believed he did, where are they now? Evidence indicates they were shipped to Syria.
posted by
WriterofLight
on September 2, 2006 at 9:20 PM
| link to this | reply