Why Are Republicans Upset And Why Are Democrats Not Upset

There was an interesting question this week proposed by a Democratic leaning friend of mine.  He asked why is it that people on the right find fault with Obama's military strikes in the Middle East, his reckless spending, his invasion of privacy and civil liberties when they had no problems with Bush doing much of the same?

There are two parts to the answer to this question and a follow up question in return.

Part 1 is there were people on the right who found fault with Bush's actions while he was president.  I myself had said many times publicly that Iraq was only justified while there was a threat of WMDs.  Once our military's orders changed from searching for WMDs to something else, the justification we had for being there was lost.  In the case of Afghanistan, I've said then and say now we need to identify an end goal.  What will it take to win that war.  We still don't know.

Bush's spending was something else I had fault with, the average deficit under Bush was 2% of the GDP.  That's not good.

Part 2 of the answer is a matter of degrees.  Allow me to explain.

The deficit was 2% of the GDP under G.W. Bush.  Compared to Clinton who averaged .8%, it was bad but it was still better then H.W. Bush (4%) and Regan (4.2%).  And it's far better then Obama's average so far of 9.1%.

It would be like finding you were ripped off of $2.  You may be annoid but you can get over the loss of $2.  But now under Obama you find out you've been ripped off $200.  Now it's a level you actually feel the impact of and it upsets you far more then losing $2 did.

Same with the Patriot Act, it was expanded under Obama.  Knowing the government is spying on non US citizens isn't upsetting because people from other countries are not entitled to US Constitutional rights, but once US citizens became the victims of government spying, there's the line being crossed.

That brings us to the follow up questions.  Why are the Democrats who opposed the spending under Bush now silent with Obama's deficit spending which far out shadows the 2% of the GDP under Bush and now hits 9.1%?  And why are the Democrats who protested Bush's signing of the original Patriot Act now silent or worse, supportive of Obama renewing and expanding it?  And why are those who protested the Iraq and Afghanistan wars under Bush now silent even though the Afghanistan war wages on with no end in site and the number of military deaths now dwarfing what we saw under Bush (73% of all the military deaths have occurred under Obama) and new military conflicts having been started in Libya, Yemen and Seria?  They pointed as evidence that Bush was in the wrong, the fact that Amnesty International called Bush a war criminal and yet now with the same accusations going toward Obama they are instead supportive of his leadership and accuse those who oppose him of racism.

I see those who originally found fault with less to be far more hypocritical then those who may have originally been silent and who have finally gotten to the level of being upset, wouldn't you?