Labels used for deflection...

[emdee]

Anyone who questions Iraq is immediately labeled "anti-war." I questioned Iraq from the minute it was mentioned because the "proof" was not iron-clad. As soon as Bush or Powell or Rumsfeld gave "intel" it was debunked immediately. I was "anti-Iraq-war" because the proof wasn't there. I am "anti-lie" for sure.

I backed going into Afghanistan and I backed going after bin Laden "dead or alive." I was never a Bush fan but I did back the Afghanistan initiative.

So, by simply saying "these anti-war people" The Right is, in essence, lying again - is my logic wrong? Simply being against Iraq does not an "anti-war" person make. I don't want to go unless and until it is necessary but I certainly do not want to send our troops into another Vietnam based on lies and oil.

I guess my point is - this whole "anti-war" label allows The Right to, once again, clump Afghanistan and Iraq into the same neat package as if they are one in the same and that "doing nothing" is the only other choice as a reaction to 9/11. The other choice would have been to stay on course, get Osama, and be done with it; dealing with Iraq diplomatically at a later time - letting the *UN* resolve a problem with a *UN* directive. I realize that many here may have also disagreed with the Afghanistan war but is my point valid?

Not having a child over there, I don't know the answer to this question but would it make a difference if a loved one was lost in Afghanistan vs Iraq? Either would be terrible but would it be more terrible (or maddening) if it were Iraq because of the lies? Again, I have no clue and am not insinuating anything with the question at all - just wondering.

("Rumsfeld" came up in error in spell-check --- it felt good to click "ignore") LOL

emdee
:shrug: