In the paper yesterday, a woman wrote in saying how impressed she was with the President's explanation of our intervention in Libya. How we are attacking at the right time, with the backing of our allies, including Arab states. How we are preventing a massacre of the Libyan people.
I'm sorry, but somehow I do not believe that when Saddam Hussein was killing 80,000 Iraqi Kurd's, with nerve gas, that she was equally behind the sitting President when he invaded Iraq. The only difference I see is, at the time, there was credible, although wrong, evidence that Iraq could be a threat to the United States.
Am I asking too much for people to be consistent in their beliefs? If the Iraq war caused people to post signs of stop the war now and impeach Bush. Why are there no signs of protest when the sitting President attacks a foreign land without consent of congress? Are we so devoted to the left or the right that we can no longer see right from wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment