Reply #36: Oh, yes, agreed about the "bounce" capital ...

[NanceGreggs]

Most of our crowd was pretty ambivalent about going into Afghanistan, but the second the word "Iraq" came out of Bush's mouth, we were all dead set against it.

As for LIHOP/MIHOP, most people I knew just considered 9-11 to be the result of an administration that just wasn't doing the job, led by the Blundering Idiot. Those of us who were familiar with PNAC, however, went to LIHOP right away. ("... a Pearl Harbour like attack on US soil")

No, I wouldn't suggest that his low ratings now are a result of antagonizing Democrats. But the divisiveness has always, IMHO, been part of the cabal plan. I remember the speech, "You're with us or your against us." I said to my husband, "He's not talking to the world at large; he's talking to US."

This Admin has done everything in its power to keep the rhetoric ratcheted-up, and their supporters rose to the bait every time. If you're not behind the war you're an America-hating traitor, in cahoots with the enemy, blah, blah, blah.

A citizenry that is united is always a risk for people like BushCo - because if and when they turn against you, it's not SOME of them; it's ALL of them. I've noticed that the most divisive topics get dragged out every time the natives start getting restless - bringing up gay marriage or abortion will get people screaming at each other, instead of talking to each other within minutes.

Do I believe that a well-intentioned president with a 90% approval rating could have done great things? Absolutely - but this was no well-intentioned president, and 9-11 was part of a much larger agenda.

As you can tell, I've since gone from LIHOP to MIHOP.