I had a debate a couple of days ago with a couple of Bush supporters, and the extent to which they will go to see the present firestorm of criticism as nothing but partisanship is revealing to me. These supporters were bemoaning how Bush is criticized for “Everything”. When I queried whether or not the same was not done to Clinton, the answer was “Not EVERYTHING”.

Selective memory. Perhaps selective omission, since the criticisms THEY had of Clinton were , in their mind, perfectly just and sound and reasonable, there was no reason to remember how they participated in the same type….exactly the SAME TYPE…of relentless criticism…….On the other hand, I asked…..was there an issue of this level of magnitude (Iraq war) ? The two political situations are a bit different. They asked me why I didn’t protest Clinton’s retaliatory strikes. “How long did that last? One day. It didn’t go ON ANd ON and ON, and it was strikes on military installations, not Baghdad neighborhoods or shopping centers” I answered. Even so, I was not “supportive” of that. Had it gone on and and on even for several days, and involved civilain causualties, they – my Bush supporter friends— would have heard from me. (As it was, I lived in another town then, and didn’t have a blog then, and we didn’t bring it up in conversation when we did get together when I visited….)

To equate THIS with THAT (the Iraq war with a single strike) is somewhat revealing of the defensiveness of such a charge. The two compare only in the realm of both are military responses. I didn’t approve of it, actually, when I heard of it. But I was not incensed, as the level of human and societal damage did not raise much international concern, as I also weighed my distaste for military solutions against making some kind of a response. I also didn’t oppose some level of military strike against Afganistan, as it was clear that Al_Quieda was hold up there. As the days wore on, and the bombs continued, I began to question the further use of that tactic, and favor a more ground based approach as the pursuit into the hills commenced. But Iraq is an entirely different story, and the Bush supporters see it as a numbers game…..”this is the way you deal with those people”, and “this is the only language THEY understand”…..perhaps, when we’re talking about Al-quieda…..but when you start following them into the crowds and bombing them along with all of the completely innocent Iraqi civilians, it becomes a different matter. There seems to be little thought of this in the Bush camp, and it particularly bothers me when this comes from the supporters who are Church people. It’s like “war matters” automatically remove themselves from questions like “What would Jesus do?” They actually explain this as something “outside the jurisdiction” of Jesus. Jesus didn’t address these things. And the usual “Render unto Caesar”, as if countries and nations could not , or are not ‘required” to ask the question of “What would Jesus do?”

Further, one of these supporters told me he thought my “concern for the Iraqis” was “phony”, clearly implying that voicing such concerns HAS TO BE SIMPLY A PARTISAN-motivated ATTITUDE. I was shocked and appalled. This has weighed heavy on me since then. I know them to be wrong about that. The two supporters kept asking why I didn’t protest that when Clinton bombed the military targets. Again , I repeated that I wasn’t particularly thrilled or supportive of it, but that it was ONE TARGETED “response” that didn’t go on and on and did not even require approval. But the larger response I made was that this and today’s Iraq situation are entirely on a different scale. And if these actions (the deception, the rush into war, the bombings of civilian-populated areas) were taken by a Democratic administration, it would have NO EFFECT upon my opposition nor my level of disgust. I know that “even a Democratic administration” would not win my approval for such tactics , and I also would also not expect that they would NOT be engaging in things to whkch I would be appalled. My distrust of the military solutions as first line of response or defense is NOT PARTISAN. I am disgusted by the disdain ardent supporters of the military aparently have for “talk”. It is to them a clear sign of weakness to go the second mile in trying to reach peaceful solutions, or even “less destructive, less all-encompassing military solutions”.