A while back, a letter to the editor of the Missoulian made the assertion that if Bush was a Democrat, the Republicans would be all over him for what he did wrong. Maybe so, but maybe we should look at what the facts are.
First, we have a President who shirked his military duty. Who ignored the United Nations, and attacked a country that had done nothing to us. He refused to send in sufficient ground troops to support the operation like the senior leadership had requested. His unilateral undeclared and unsanctioned war killed many innocent civilians. At the end of the conflict, that country's leader was brought before a tribunal for his crimes, where he makes a mockery of the entire judicial proceedings.
And then he had the temerity to say that it would be a limited occupation, and that we would be out in no time at all. Yet here we are 10 years on, and we are still there.
What? you say, we haven't been in Iraq for 10 years. True, but I was talking about Bosnia, although you could throw the Haiti fiasco in there as well.
Yeah, I can see where opposition depends on which party you are from. It just seems to me, that when we have something as important as dealing with Islamofacism, people may be more willing to give a little consideration to the President. I didn't see the kind of protests going on when Clinton did the same thing in an area that we had no strategic interests. So what is the difference? Oh yeah, Bush is a Republican. 'nuff said.