What's the difference between weapons of mass destruction and weapons of chemical destruction?
One gives you an excuse to bash a Republican president.
The other an excuse not to bash a Democratic president.
Nevermind this president drew the line in the sand on mass destruction weapons.
Democrats were all over that former president for getting wrong what most of they themselves were convinced George Bush had right.
And now they aren't saying boo to this president that his worst fears are right.
So now repeating, that president is bad for pushing us into a war most Democrats supported because it sure looked like Saddam had bad stuff. In fact, they used bad stuff.
This president is not bad for ignoring his own threats of consequences.
Now that we know Bashar Assad definitely has bad stuff.
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.
What I am saying is the double-standard in the coverage of each is very wrong.
You can't fault a former president for acting on independent data that even Hillary Clinton believed and accepted at the time.
Then not say boo about a lot more convincing data that almost all prominent Democrats very much believe and accept this time.
Even though back then lots of Democrats supported President Bush's Gulf War.
Now, awkward, eerie silence from them over President Obama's consequences for all but going to war.
Maybe they're just tired of war.
Or maybe who's calling for war.
Reckless and feckless, if it's Bush.
Reasoned and measured, if it should ever be Barack Obama.
Each talking of consequences then and now the civilized world thought sound.
Until the idea of actually "acting" on those consequences doesn't sound good.
...and that line in the sand doesn't mean it's still not drawn in sand. You can move it. You can wipe it out.
John Kennedy once famously said, "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan."
Democrats dare not make Obama a Bush.
So they prefer carrying a big stick, than ever having, God forbid--to use it.