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.
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?
=======================
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?
=============================
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?
=============================
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?
==============================
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.
