Replies

I won't deny that they are hypocritical, and unfortunately we have some hypocrites on our side. That's the way politics are when the parties switch office. It's one thing if you change your mind because of certain factors, but it's another if you change your mind simply because it's a different party in power. It's like all of the Democrats who voted for Bush to invade Iraq and then years later pretending they were against it and wanting us out. They were supporting it to win points in elections. Hell, I was for the invasion of Iraq originally just because I thought Saddam and his sons were evil personified, but I've come to accept the fact that we shouldn't have done so and that regime change for the sake regime change is bad, and Libya is reinforcing that viewpoint for me. That's completely different from Democrats who supported Bush in 2003 simply because a lot of potential voters supported it. It's completely understandable for me to change my mind given my reasoning, but they are changing their minds because of public opinion and not any rational thinking.

I'm coming around to the idea that Obama favored special operations to get a physical confirmation of OBL while the military was pushing a missile strike is backwards. I bet Obama just wanted them to blow up the compound and not risk anything else, because Obama loves his drones flying around Pakistan, just like Clinton preferred missiles in Afghanistan rather than troops who could have done more. I cannot see the CIA wanting a predator strike or a bombing run by the Air Force and giving up all of that potential information that was available in the compound.