Reply #172: I'm not saying he's above criticism

[candymarl]

My point was, this is the same type of rhetoric used to gin up the Iraq war. I quite clearly said he's not a good guy. I get that. But this all out personal attack started with the White House. How did we get into Iraq? By personally attacking Saddam as evil. Weapons of mass destruction. Iran personally attack the leader as evil. Weapons of mass destruction. Deja vu all over again. I don't like this guy. Not a fan. What I'm saying is this a deliberate campaign ala Iraq to gin up support for some kind of military action. An amendment placed in a bill that could be used to justify a military attack against Iran (see Sen Webb). We didn't carry on about this guy when he was first elected. The more the subject of war with Iran comes up, the more evil he's painted. Should he get a free pass? No. But what's the real point of all the hatred directed toward him by the White House and media? Do you really think it's just because he's evil? Why waste the time? Why give him so much attention? Experience tells us the White House never goes overboard painting someone as evil for NO REASON. Do you think Bush and the Republicans will now start defending gays right here in our own country? I doubt it.