My comment about selectivity was based on this:
Quote:
Because it doesn't really matter that Bush/Republicans are in power.
Because Democrats show the same (1) partisan lack of fairness, and (2) contempt and utter lack of civility toward conservatives/Republicans, no matter which party is in power. And I don't think it's "whining" to point out that there is a clear double-standard.
If both sides both do the same things, how can a double-standard exist?
My point about one-sidedness was this: if you assert membership before ideas, you're often forced to accept (or be associated with) a wide-ranging set of notions that may not apply to you. That you agree with the President on the war is only part of the issue--whether or not we can achieve lasting success is the larger question. Because of religious and cultural divides, many of the gains that the US has realized in Iraq will probably not last too long past our eventual withdrawl from the country.
Now stating the above does not mean you haven't considered it, but it doesn't appear as if US leadership has given it long-term thought. Democrats have raised these concerns, only to be drown in the cries of being soft on terrorism. My concern, more generally, is simply that we've entered these countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) without realistically achievable objectives, and in the meantime have exposed ourselves to the enemy in more subtle ways.
