Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
WB in December '05 this thread, same old WB now. Lots of strong rhetoric that has helped a poor leader keep getting troops killed & helping terrorists in their recruitment.



With all due respect M E M, that's a partisan liar's argument on your part, that distorts the truth in an attempt to smear me.

I made it clear early on that I supported our effort in Iraq, but felt Bush and Rumsfeld didn't provide the troop strength in Iraq to get the job done.
I made it clear that I didn't want to support Bush in 2004, but with the pacifist alternative offered in Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Democrats offered an even worse alternative that compelled me to vote for Bush in 2004 (I did not vote for Bush in 2000, I voted for Nader, in opposition to both Bush and Gore, in support of creating pressure for political change from outside the 2-party system).

I've been supportive of an alternative policy all along, I've been supportive of removing Rumsfeld since late 2004, I've clearly not been 100% supportive of Bush in my comments at any point and have voiced many points of policy where I dissent from Bush, increasingly since after the 2004 election.

But the bottom line is, the Democrats have offered no credible alternative in all that time, forcing me to grudgingly support the lesser of two evils.

So don't blame me. Blame your own party for being just as partisan as the Bush administration.