Fisty nailed it.
Some seem to treat GWB and/or the Republican Party as some sort of verbal whack-a-mole game. When ever the topic pops up, they have to beat on it with a great big hammer. No reason, no purpose, no sense. Just do it. Again and again. And again. And again.
It's not just roo-ster, it's plenty of other people on APS. And plenty of people in the wider world.
Someone tell me what the point is. Surely the point isn't merely to express your opposition. That's been manifestly accomplished already. Really, we get it, you don't like the guys. No, really, we get it. We got it after the first 5,000 times.
Granted, I'm a strong supporter of the Rep Party. Been pretty heavily involved in local and some state politics for a few years. So that gives me some additional reason to take exception to the knee-jerk attacks on me and mine. But even if I had no extra care or concern, I'd still be sick and tired of it, just as everyone else is.
It's time to move on. Long past time, actually.
Now, if you want to talk specifically about the GWB bit in WaPo, fine. But can everyone leave out the tired old reflexive attacks?
What's so wrong with the WaPo piece, really? Bush makes a few syrupy ra-ra go-USA remarks about how helping people is good and how the USA helps lots of people, and then he goes on to advocate for a nice do-good cuase. Isn't this sort of thing that ex-presidents are supposed to do in their off-time?
If your gripe is that the US spent some tax dollars on African AIDs work, fine. I get it, and I mostly agree. But we spend gazillions of dollars on foreign policy and foreign aid all the time, in ways big and small, trying to further our own interests and those of others who matter to us. What makes African AIDs money so extra special evil compared to all the rest?
It doesn't seem any special or more noteworthy than the rest, at least not to me. It leaves me wondering if the gripe isn't about the AIDs money or advocacy, and just about some personal feelings towards the man behind it all.