As I said, they favored it as long as they didn't have to do anything for it.
I can't help but wonder just how many were conflating the invasion of Iraq and the attack on the WTC, and whether that totally unrelated war would have been so acceptable had the attack of 9/11 not taken place.
Our actions do create more terrorists when we inflict collateral damage to innocent lives with cruise missiles and drones, rather than using bullets against a seen enemy. Both Clinton and Obama seem to be doing their best to create terrorists.
It is absolutely related and will rank as the lowest point in American electorate history. Had the people elected a stronger and more experienced President many of these threads wouldn't even exist.
The original (2008) election of Barack Obama is related in that the electorate was sick and tired of Bush and ready to vote for any Notbush who was the least bit credible. How he was reelected remains a mystery to me, but that's just me.
You appear to lack the wit or knowledge to actually debate. Seriously then, why are you involved in a debate forum?
Your ad hominem attack is duly noted, thus subtracting points from your credibility as a serious debater. Now, back to the original subject which was... what again? The war in Iraq. Oh, yes, that was it. Now, let's see.... we've established that the CIC who decided to invade was one George Bush, but that the Congress authorized the invasion, but stopped short of actually declaring war on anyone, thus subverting the Constitution. We've established that both Democrats and Republicans voted for the invasion, thus taking the partisan nonsense out of the debate. We've established that today's Iraq is an unholy mess after Obama followed the previously established withdrawal plan.