[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I can think of several people in the national dialogue who I feel have every fibre in the core of their being and their political futures invested in hating the war until it fails. Their tactics are to go against their own statements of support before the war started, to critize every miniscule setback until they are blue in the face, create public farce which fuels the the Al Jeezera Anti-American propaganda machine, and generally behave like politik worms are apt to do by putting their own interests over that of the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Claiming that some people have placed their political stake in the failure of the war doesn't demonstrate hatred, it demonstrates strategy and self-interest; something I think we can all agree is rational, no? That's not hatred, it's calculus.

And I think you're certainly engaging in just a bit of exaggeration; I won't pretend to know what's in most war critics 'every fiber in their core', but I generally assume most don't wish failure upon the United States, nor do they have deep and unending hatred for the war (given that, as you say, many of the people I think you're referring to voted for the war).

[ QUOTE ]
Why, O, Why Dvaut, do you put yourself in their defense by making posts like this thread if you disagree with their postion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whose defense? The people for whom you've created some exaggerated narrative about? Why have I put myself in the defense of those people?

I don't know. Why do people engage in demagoguery and use strawman arguments?

-----------------------

Or put another way: President Bush sent soldiers to war, and some soldiers died in this war, which makes President Bush an dictatorial murder, who would clearly kill puppies and kittens if he had the chance, and thought no one was looking, and Cheney gave the go-ahead.

Why do you defend this puppy killing monster?

----------------------

So yeah, long story short, I'm not really in the business of defending others against over-exaggerated and demagogic attacks levied against them.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the country feels the way about the course of the debate that the President does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I've heard many comments after the speech (coming out of the evil talk radio establishment, which obviously isn't mainstream because the ratings are in the toilet and no body listens to it or pays hosts enormous sums of money to advertise on their programs) that the President was finally saying what he needed to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...you heard on right-wing talk radio that the President they fervently support finally said what needed to be said about the war they also fervently support.

[ QUOTE ]
Now if you oppose the President's labeling of his critics as defeatists on the basis that it's simply name calling, how do you feel about the use of every label that has been hung on the President by the same people (liar, racist, theif, corrupt, Hitler, stealer of elections, hijacker of the government, etc, etc, etc)? Is turnabout fair play, or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind name-calling; in fact, I rather enjoy it and find it perfectly legitimate. I just disagree with the President's characterization of his opponents. I certainly have no ethical misgivings over name-calling.