Of Invasions And Inconsistency

Many liberals have this fascinating ability to separate two inconsistent opinions and argue that both are correct and consistent. One of the most glaring of these concerns how they view the invasion of Iraq with the invasion of the Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.
Many liberals will defend Clinton and Reno against all dissenters on the correctness of the siege of the property of an American citizen, while at the same time argue that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and inappropriate.
How is this possible? Oh, I know, I've heard the arguments. Koresh was a gun nut who was molesting children. That was the allegation. However, if one looks at the human intelligence on which the warrants against Koresh were based, the evidence against Saddam was much stronger.
If you don't believe me, read the warrants against Koresh. The warrants were based upon intelligence of him engaging in LEGAL activity that could be interpreted to be the precursor to illegally manufacturing or altering weapons.
The anti-war crowd screams about how evidence was manipulated against Saddam, yet cares little about how evidence was manipulated against an American citizen, who happened to be a "gun nut". Whatever else, David Koresh was an American citizen. He was entitled to Constitutional protections of that citizenship. However, the same people who believe that Saddam should have been considered innocent until proven guilty will justify a military invasion of the home of an American citizen on a suspicion.
The same people that worry about the Patriot Act think Koresh got what he deserved. Islamic terrorists and a Middle Eastern despot should have more rights than an American gun nut.
All of this makes sense to most liberals. I just find it amazing.