On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:30:51 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...
There are many differences, including these:

No one in the Obama administration is lying about why we might get
involved in a limited way in Libya. The Bush administration lied us into
Iraq.

Nobody in the administration has laid out our national interests in
Libya.

Our national interests? How about removing a dictator who's hated by
most everyone in that part of the world. I guess that won't do
anything for US credibility, which was pretty much destroyed by Bush.

I haven't seen any statements that would commit U.S. ground troops to Libya.

The fact that you haven't seen the statements doesn't mean that they
don't exist.

The president has said explicitly that there wouldn't be any. I
supposed you want to see the original? Perhaps Obama can send it to
you along with the original birth certificate.

What may take place in Libya is an incursion to remove the dictator
there. How many *years* has Bush's war in Iraq been going on?

The war in Iraq is over we have no combat troops in Iraq.

Finally. Of course, we're still not finished cleaning up Bush's mess.

You are an idiot, Herring. With your help, we lost in Southeast Asia.

The Democrats ensured our loss in SEA. Johnson's Tuesday pick a target
lunches. McNamara running the war as an accounting exercise.

So, you're blaming Obama for Johnson's mistakes? How about Johnson's
successes, like civil rights.

Tet '68 could have been a turning point. The VC and NVA got their asses
handed to them and if we had loosed the dogs of war we could have taken
the war to Hanoi.


It's been over for a while now. VN is now a trading partner. Get over
it.