KingZombie wrote: 4saken1 wrote:
AFAIK, the President hasn't yet said that war is imminent. He doesn't seem gung-ho to come out guns blazing like our last president, though. Also, the evidence before him doesn't seem to have been manufactured just to push a pro-war agenda. I did see that domestic support of an invasion is pretty low, though, if that's what you were wondering.....
LOL, it's funny how the evidence is somehow not "manufactured" when it's the president of your choice. Good one!
I'm guessing that your point here has nothing at all to do with any factual thing, or even the actual issue of Syria and chemical weapons. I am guessing you are trying to make some whiny conservative sheep commentary about how poor George bush gets treated unfairly compared with Obama.
And, if i am right, i'll take one second here to enlighten you, although, i'm sure you'll be back on with hannity or Rush tomorrow to get the real "truth" anyways. lol
George Bush launched a full scale war against another country. When he did it the American people were FULLY behind him. Even the dems in Gov. were with him. He had made the case for war with Iraq and the American people sided with him.
Of course, the case he made ended up being a 100% bald faced lie that not even the most conservative conservative can refute. So...based on the fact that we were all so blatantly lied to and tens of thousands of people died, and billions of dollars were wasted based on those lies, we kinda got a little mad at him....AND WE SHOULD HAVE.
Now, we are being told Syria is using chemical weapons against civilians. If that is true we SHOULD go to war to stop them (just like we SHOULD have gone to war to divest Hussein of his WMD). And , if years later it turns out that we were being bald faced lied to about the chemical weapons, then we SHOULD be mad at Obama.
Here's to guessing though, that doesnt happen. You see, Obama is many things....but he isn't the liar that George W. Bush is.