...after he started the wars in the middle east.

would always tell him that. They also said, "He's the commander in chief."

My husband told them that Dubya was not HIS commander in chief, because he was not in the military. He had completed his military service a long time ago. A few times, he asked guys if they had served. Most of them mumbled and walked away.

Johnson and Nixon shouldn't have been criticized for Vietnam?

Because we always have troops in the field.

Only white Republican non-muslins can be the true president. You know.

Guiliani is a tool, but so is that statement about not criticizing the president.

The president works for us.

Way to echo the authoritarian Bushbots.

This is to call out Republicans who are not practicing what they preached

So they preached malignant, antidemocratic BULLSHIT. That does not mean you should imply that they should have followed through on malignant, antidemocratic BULLSHIT.

Not even to score a political point.

rather than poking the right wingers for disagreeing now when they claimed earlier it was wrong to do.

I hope not. It's authoritarian bullshit either way.

When the corrupt con politicians and their corrupt media start making any sense please wake me up.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt

I found a refuge here at DU in March 2004. It was safe to criticize Bush et al here. No one else seemed to be doing it.

We have been perpetually at war for more than 13 years, and it could last indefinitely.

Was I wrong to criticize GW Bush during the war in Iraq?

If, while war goes on, it's unpatriotic to criticize the president, than I'll proudly wear the label of unpatriotic.

Even presidents. Even if they're Democrats.