You see, the difference is the revolution against those leaders was started by the people of those countries. It wasnt forced by the USA. Much different than what happened in Iraq. Not even close. Not to mention it didnt cost us trillions of dollars or thousands of USA lives to support the people of Egypt and Libya.
Nice try though
Your contention and revision of history is that "Republicans" went to war with Iraq based on a lack of facts, but the real truth is that both parties and a majority of the people in this nation supported that war.
As for your wayward deflection (par for the course) question, no single elected official was more vocal in their opposition to the resolution than Ron Paul (R) - Texas.
In the case of Bush, there are very few R's bringing him forth. Looks to be quite the opposite for the President
As it is, Ken being Pro-Islamic Regimes and Anti-Israel, and universally Pro-Obama is a non-shocker tbqh. Reading his posts when we bombed the piss out of Libya to support and protect Euro Oil interests was, I have to say, one of the most entertaining rationalization for flip-flopping I'ver read on this site.
Speaking of reading comprehension....
Really? Which Repubs were vocal about their objection to invading Iraq for the same reasons i gave?
Paul objected invading Iraq but not for the reasons I gave. His foreign policy is that of general non-intervention. Has nothing to do with the reasons i have given
I disagree with "Obamacare", I disagree with his stance on Afghanistan, his inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, disagree with his enforcement of the Patriot Act, hate the fact that due process has all been eliminated when dealing with "terrorists" under his watch, and disagree with his paractice of corporate welfare.
How can you still say I am universally pro-Obama? Thats just stupid.
Do I favor him over Romney? Absolutely
Come on guys, this my side vs. your side b.s. doesn't help anyone. As a matter of fact, its a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with politics in America as a whole. Reading this thread makes me feel like I'm watching Congress on CSPAN.
Ill say it again I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DEMOCRATS SUPPORTED THE WAR.
They were dead wrong and I criticized them then as I do now.
Now here is what you dont understand. Politics is not a team sport. I dont universally agree with everything the Dems say or do because they are Dems and i have an allegiance to anyone who may belong to that party. I dont work for the Dems nor do i receive money from them, therefore i have no other reason to support the party. There are plenty of Dems i dont particularly care for including the current president. I support most Dems because my personal political beliefs are shared by most Dems.
Another thing that you dont quite get is that the Repubs, with a strong majority, supported going into Iraq, and still refuse to admit it was a mistake. With few exceptions, you could only name 1 out of hundreds.
You claim you dont "belong" to either party, whatever that means.
Name 6 Repubs and 6 Dems whose politics you agree with.
Egypt, Lybia. The Muslim Brotherhood Obama lit the fire and it consuming the Middle East. A Dark Skinned version of Jimmy Carter! BTW Obama new in advance of Egypt and Lybia and did nothing. The blood of the diplomat is in him. His 9/11!
Because it's not Socialist/Communist enough, yes, I am aware.I disagree with "Obamacare",
Yes, I've noticed how often you call him ou.....oh, right.I disagree with his stance on Afghanistan
Meaning, specificly, his not forcing a two-state solution down Israels throat, right?, his inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian issue
Like Solyndra and GM?, and disagree with his paractice of corporate welfare
Or do you just mean the Banks he bailed out?
So hard to keep track of all the special interests that have been rewarded, directly. It's funny, the claims was always that Iraq was a "War for Oil", yet there is very little evidence that shows a direct corrolary of profit increases by the Oil companies related to it. Yet our action in Libya directly protected Euro Oil flows, and the Obama era has been a non-stop rewarding of political allies and special interests, and generally speaking, you are again silent on it until prodded hard.
Guess you're disagreement isn't very strong, is it? if it was, I'd have expected a few unprodded posts and threads on it.
Addressed above. Universal is irrelevant, your support IS unwavering.How can you still say I am universally pro-Obama? Thats just stupid.
Of course, because at one point or another, you've posted all the same things as that reader comment I yanked off of CNN.Do I favor him over Romney? Absolutely