Submitted by julian, Jan 28, 2008 20:23

You really don't see the difference between Bush saying that we need to invade Iraq immediately because Saddam was involved in 9/11 and will attack us with WMDs and nuclear weapons, and Obama saying that we shouldn't get into yet another unnecessary and disastrous war? One position warns the public that they have been killed and will be killed unless we attack someone, the other position warns against starting down an unnecessary warpath (by, for example, refusing to talk to leaders and labeling them as a terrorist organization, which according to Bush's War on Terror doctrine would mean that they and those that harbor them must be killed). I'm confused as to how he's supposed to oppose a war against Iran without somehow including how it would be bad, and therefore should be avoided (terrifying!).

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.