The hypocrisy here is so staggering, even Captain Underpants would have a tuff time topping it.
I am hoping, for your sake, that you really just don't see it, although I don't know how. Can you explain these positions to me?
Issue 1:
In 2001, Iraq was supporting terrorist groups, Saddam was trying to, if he hadn't already, form a working relationship with Al Qaeda, he had WMD no question, he was attempting to get nuclear technology, at least one of the people involved in 9/11 fled to Iraq, and we had credible supported intelligence as outlined by the Rockefeller report to all of this and more, as well as other intel agencies around the world, and ignoring all of this, Saddam violated the 1st Gulf War peace agreement by throwing out the UN inspectors. Yet, to the left, this is not good enough for an invasion.
In an alternate, parallel universe, no doubt what you are saying is true. In this one, however, Iraq didn't have WMD, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until after the invasion, the masterminds of 9/11 fled to Afganistan and Pakistan, the perpetrators of said attack were killed, and the UN inspectors were in Iraq until we warned them to get out, just before the invasion.
Of course, if you believe in parallel universes, or in the mutability of the past, then what you just posted could well be factual.
You have one single retired CIA agent who is guestimating about what Al Qaeda is doing in Pakistan, and claiming this is enough to justify invasion.
Care to explain the left's hypocrisy?
=======================
Well, this mythical "left" of which you speak must have read up on their history, or been paying attention. The non left is left to the task of justifying the way the so called "war on terror" has been carried out, which is quite a chore, unless you do believe in the mutability of the past or in parallel universes. I suppose that must explain the fact that the non left seems to be getting smaller and smaller, as long as you define "left" as anyone who thinks that the war was a mistake.
Issue 2
In 2001, the left bashed Bush un-endingly for his resolve to deal with Saddam permanently. They squealed about not having U.N. support, for not getting a coalition with every dictator on the planet supporting it, they whined we'd lose credibility with the world for rushing to war, that Bush was a crazed cowboy shooting from the hip. Nevertheless, Bush "rushed" off to war a full year later.
No, with the support of no one, not even the generally supportive president of Pakistan has given us support, you want him to rush in on Sept. 12th 2001.
Would you care to explain the left's hypocrisy?
=============================
There is a good reason why Bush didn't have much of a posse when he decided to invade. See above.
Issue 3
The oil, the oil, the oil! A common refrain. Even though there is zero evidence oil was the goal, and no chance we'll gain ownership, nor control of Iraqi oil, nevertheless the wacky lefties still claim it's true.
Pakistan is an oil exporting country, yet, 'charge!' seems to be the call.
Care to explain the hypocrisy?
=============================
Well, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the other lefties who planned the war told us that Iraqi oil would pay for it. Wrong again!
Issue 4
Nearly every single action Bush has taken, both large and small, has been criticized by the left. Whether it is keeping enemy combatants at gitmo, getting live saving information from AQ leaders with interrogation, legislating upgrades to our intel gathering abilities, or a massive invasion of an AQ stronghold. In every case, no matter the size or scope, he shouldn't have done it for whatever reason.
Now, he apparently didn't do something yet, and he is being criticized for not doing it.
Care to explain the hypocrisy?
==============================
OOO, That,s an easy one. There are two reasons why Bush has been criticized by "the left" The first one is that most of who you call "left" are really Democrats, and Bush is a Republican. Whenever one party does something, the other is likely to criticize. It's called party politics.
The other reason is that practically every decision Bush has made in the past seven years has been wrong.
Finely Bush never was hunting nuclear devices. He never said he had nuclear weapons, nor did anyone in the administration claim so. They claimed that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapon, and that has been supported. Stop lying, and move on.
Correct. They said he had "weapons of mass destruction", and was developing nuclear (or nukular, if you prefer) weapons. It is in the resolution to authorize military force passed by the Congress.
Which, of course, means that Congress was wrong also.
