Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazygrrl
Was it not liberals that totally flipped when George Bush removed Saddam Hussein? Did Cindy Sheehan and her Code Pink not camp outside of his ranch in Texas - for several years? Was this "expedition" not paid for by elements of the DNC? Did they not demean this man in every conceivable way? Here keeping a very brutal dictator who had gassed his own people with VX and other nerve agents, in power was accepted as it was a means of attacking George Bush. These same people called G.W. Bush a "mass murderer" and a "war criminal" for bombing supposedly peaceful and innocent Iraq? Perhaps even all those huge "anti-war" demonstrations orchestrated by liberals world-wide did not actually exist. Yet, these very same people are still on their feet, cheering Obama in a wild frenzy, for bombing Libya who has been far more peaceful than Iraq. Are there calls in the press labeling Obama a "war criminal" or "mass murderer"? If there are, I certainly have not heard them. Perhaps I just imagined George Bush being called all of these things. What did Jimmy Carter assert a while back? Was it not that all criticism of Obama is based in racism.  |
First of all, welcome back, KG.
Speaking for myself (and not for all of those who disliked Dubya), I think a lot of what bothered me about Iraq were the false pretenses (perhaps retrospectively) under which this war was instigated. Taking a nation to war is the most serious thing the leader of a sovereign nation can do. Doing it under false pretenses (or charitably, as the result of faulty intelligence) should
always be subject to intense criticism IMHO.
When we invaded Iraq, I was very hopeful we would find WMD's to help settle the discomfort of many in this nation and abroad about being sold a bill of goods with regard to the threat of Saddam. No such luck.
For the record, I voted for Dubya in 2000 (but not again in 2004).