Many members who voted for tough stance on Syria now oppose military action

[stupidicus]

41. again

you make it abundantly clear you can't understand the diff between the use of military force and everything that falls short of that, which leads you to erroneously "believe" that just because the congress critters were all in on econ sanctions, etc, in whatever country, that they have to also be approving of war with that country.

WHo the groups were in Iraq such assistance would go to has no bearing on all the distinctions drawn that completely undermine your BS here, nor does the fact that they weren't embroiled in a civil war. It's just your customary dodging of the only relevant material -- that the use of force in Syria is not "just like" approving of sanctions, arming rebels, etc.

it's just the usual meaningless garbage your quiver seems to be exclusively full of, regardless of the issue.

What I find most amusing about your focus on Iraq here, is that that is some of the same BS your Bushbotted, rightwing cousins use to spew in defense of their Fuhrer invading. It was hard to have a debate about the Iraq war without them citing the ILA of 1998 as a partial justification for it, and now we have you doing so.

Thanks for showing your true self for the readers.