Do most conservatives who still support Bush do it because giving up on him would mean proving libs right &...

Question

they'd rather go down with the Bush ship than do that or do they just have the same blind faith that they had when the first voted for him? And faith beats out the truth especially the truth about Iraq?

Answer 1

It's as if the entire country has gone to the race track. At the end of the day, the liberals and sensible conservatives go home, while the rest of the conservatives continue to cheer on their horse, long after he's lost the race.

Answer 2

You missed at least one other option regarding those have continued to support Bush rather than doing what is right.

The option that I am thinking of is that maybe those that have remained faithful may be doing so because Bush has some dirt on them that he is using to threaten them with.

Bush has shown a tendency towards preying upon the human frailness in those that have come into congress (for example: the page boy scandals, the illegal contributions, etc.).

The Bush Administration is like a crime family. The Executive Branch is supposed to be independant from the Judicial Branch. The Department of Justice is supposed to state what the rule of the laws.
The Department of Justice has been turned into the Department of Injustice. The federal prosecutors are prosecuting Border Security Agents for doing their duty. The federal prosecutors & courts used testimony by providing immunity to illegal alien drug smugglers. That's just plain wrong. The Southern Borders could be sealed at anytime with vigorous prosecution and punishment for the offenders.

The firing of federal prosecutors that did not agree with the Bush Administration is a prime example. If the Attorney General was really innocent and had nothing to do with the firings why has other facts come forward that prove that the highest representative of Law Enforcement in the country is not a man of his word and can't be trusted.

If he had the slightest respect for his position as the Attorney General of the United States he would have resigned prior to following Bush. It is absurd that Congress has let him take up so much of their time when there are so many other similar problems in the way the Bush Administration rules the country.

Congress is just starting to find out how bad this country has sunk morally and ethically during the years of the Bush Administration.

The president claims that if Congress doesn't give him the money to continue the illegal invasion of Iraq, they won't be supporting the Troops when in fact with the discovery of the poor treatment of the wounded soldiers and their families, it has been the Bush Administration that has not been using the funding that he received in the past for the benefits of the Troops. Yet his VP Dick Cheney can report over a $1,000,000 of taxable income on his $200,000 salary as VP. Who knows how much has gone unreported ?

I better stop here. The point that I wanted to make is that once the Bush Administration learns of some unethical behaviour of the slightest degree on a person. They use it and abuse it over and over.

Answer 3

Hard to believe that it was almost four years ago when Bush informed the public that the war was over.

WRONG............... typical civilian without a clue.

He said the mission was over, the mission was to take IRAQ it was taken, THAT mission was over. HOWEVER once that mission was over a new one took over. This is not exactly rocket sience but it might as well be for lib-defeatocrat dems.

I repeat the MISSION was over, the WAR is STILL ON and its called WORLD WAR THREE, a war is made up of various THEATERS and MISSIONS, do you think WW2 was just one theater or one mission. AND EVEN if Republicans would rather go down with the ship, who is tring to SINK the ship???? DEMOCRATS would rather this nation loses the war to spite bush ! and DEMOCRATS do not want us to win in IRAQ and Democrats are not even interested in any good news coming from IRAQ.

Democrats are blind to their misguided faith that even if it means being a traitor they would rather be traitors just to attack The President. TRUTH, the democrats do not even know the meaning of the word truth.

Answer 4

Even here they're still spouting the errors that got us entangled in Operation Al-Qagmyr: the bogus Saddamn/Osama connection which has been consistently debunked by every US intelligence agency, yet which Cheney brought up again as recently as this week; the fact that we invaded without the requisite authorization of the UN Security Council; the fact that the entire invasion was botched from the beginningand defeat snatched from the jaws of victory by the incompetents Bush chose to appoint to the CPA; on and on and on.

That is the problem, though, when you start a faith-based war. Eventually the fact that you have no idea what you're doing or what the locals will think about it rears its ugly head, and your best-intended faith-based motivations crash in flames.

Some of them still refuse to acknowledge that the Bush war rationale is on fire and in a flat spin, and even if it is, they are sure that the president has the consitutional authority to correct course before the crash.

The fact that he lacks the vision or ability to do so never seems to enter their awareness.

Answer 5

they've built up such a hatred of the other side, that I don't think many will ever support even moderate views. I absolutely hate Bush and Neo-cons (nearly as much as I hate extremists in my own party), but I definitely do not hate the garden variety Conservative, in fact I believe they are essential to our political process. The answers of most of the ultra loyal Bush supporters suggest that they would support him and their party even if it damages our country. The majority of people are patriots and know the difference between self interest and national interest. I can understand a opposing view that has the best interest of the US as it's core. I can take criticism regarding Liberal views from a person who also can take criticism from me in order to improve each other and the country, but the people I see throwing dirt, like calling Gore a "pathological liar" because of Global Warming, serves no purpose but to make me believe they are truly crazy or just plain stupid.

In response to "Don't Panic"...you haven't given any real examples of Bush's success, you can't just say he was successful and deny all his failures and you whole argument is simply justifying the war. Your argument regarding WMD's is pretty thin considering the lack of them. Clinton was in the same position with the same sort of intelligence, but I am certain that invasion was the something he would have done only as a last resort. There was no need to put land troops in Iraq. There has been no savings in lives, there has been more lives lost because of it. I'd be more understanding if you and others would just come out and say the truth that we are there to control a central Middle East country because of some world strategy

Answer 6

I'm also a libertarian (with a small "l"), but your question assumes that Bush is a "ship that's sinking".
Islamic Jihadism is going to end up being a 100 year worldwide war, and whether you like the Iraq war situation or not, history is going to make Bush look a lot smarter about this stuff than he looks now.
There are MANY things I don't like about Bush, but the reality is, in the present political climate, it's either him or the Democrats.
So, it's a lesser of two evils situation.
The problem I have with lots of Libertarians, is they're willing to "go down with the democratic ship" and REALLY screw the country up, just to prove a point.
I believe in principal, but not to this extent.

Besides, the things I don't like about Bush, are the things he's done that make him basically like a Democrat;
Super-high spending being the biggest.
It makes no sense at all to "go all the way" with those things and let Democrats win.

Answer 7

Time to rip apart a few of the arguments here -
Shrink - I have read and understand the US Constitution. I would expect, as a lawyer, you would have done this also. It is NOT a fluid document, as Bush and his cronies have assumed.

Now for dontpanics rant:
1. Saddam wanted to get nuclear weapons. He already had several types of WMDs. The liberals had, in fact, cited these chemical weapons as reasons why we shouldn't go into Iraq. Janeane Garofalo, a liberal intellectual, said, "If we invade Iraq, there's a United Nations estimate that says, "There will be up to half a million people killed or wounded.'" Good news: Only 3,275 were killed so far!

- I love that people are still believing the Nigerian yellowcake lies years after they have been proven false. Yes, he HAD several types of WMD - all were given to him by the US during the Iran/Iraq war. Did we stupidly assume he wouldn't use them? On your 2nd "point" are we to assume that the 500,000 innocent Iraqis who have been killed shouldn't be considered "people"? They don't count, in your world...

2. Saddam harbored terrorists and was connected to Al Qaeda, despite the Liberals who said they weren't.
-Once again, proven false and Bush himself even denied that he said this. Abul Abbas was captured in Iraq, after coming from Pakistan after the invasion. He wasn't there before.

3. Even if these all had not been true, George Bush would still be doing a good thing going into Iraq.

- So, all this wasn't true. And no, it wasn't a good thing for the half a million dead Iraqis - but they don't count in your book...

Answer 8

Most Republicans think like Bush. More than a few of them are disappointed with his performance and his luck. Some true conservative Republicans are appalled by Bush trashing the US constitution and have called or near called for his impeachment. Of course, most democrats were against Bush and their beliefs that Bush is bad have been fully justified.

Answer 9

I did door-to-door canvassing a few years ago--the only election in many years for which I did not serve as a poll worker--and was astonished at number of Republicans, even then, who were disillusioned with Bush. The fiscal conservatives were dismayed by the already-burgeoning national debt. The isolationists were appalled that Bush had invaded a sovereign power with no provocation whatsoever. Those who had served in the military were horrified at the poor planning and pitiful logistics of Bush's invasion.

Oddly, most of the people who said they supported Bush said they supported him because he opposed abortion and opposed marriage between anyone but a male and a female. But, even the solidly Republican Congress refused to back him on either issue.

And now even Republican members of Congress have begun to object to his policies and are moving to reverse them.

How do you explain that?

Answer 10

Oh come on here! ffs! I support Bush because he is not one to back down when these f*&^ers mess with america. Let me ask you a question...do you love america? Do you love your freedom? It is because of those who enlist in our military that we can roam about the precious usa somewhat worry free...if a lib was in office..if a dem was in office..we would have more events such as 9/11 happening due to their cowardness. I think every party has their pro's and con's..no one is perfect and no one can please everyone at the same time. I admit when I am wrong. Not afraid to. Yet do not blame these wonderful troops for your ill feelings towards this war. They did not start it. They are only doing what they were told to do. You do not have to support the war, let alone the president..yet you do need to support our troops.