The difference between Obama going to war with Syria and Bush going to war with Iraq
is that Bush had more respect for the UN, and more respect for Congress, getting from both something which could at least be called approval. Obama isn’t even bothering.
The similarity is that both wars appear to be based on lies: Iraq had no WMD (and was not involved in 9/11), and it is highly unlikely that Syria used chemical weapons on its own people, not because Assad is a nice guy (he’s a torturing scumbag) but because they don’t need to, they’re winning the war.
Obama’s just another war criminal, like Bush. The Libyan war, whether you agree with it or not, was a straight up violation of the Constitution and even the War Powers Act. He kills far more people with drones than Bush ever did, and he claims rights Bush didn’t claim, like the right to, on his own authority, kill American citizens without them having a trial, facing their accusers and so on. Obama has taken virtually every bad Bush precedent and made it worse.
This is a transparent “Gulf of Tonkin” style false-flag attack, flimsy on the face, with the majority of Americans, French and British citizens opposed to war, and Obama and Blair will use it as their excuse for war anyway.
And to be really clear, this is the exact same crime that Nazis were hung for at Nuremburg: the crime of unprovoked warmaking.
(Edit: Removed Del Ponte quote removed, as it’s from May. My apologies. Nonetheless, I sincerely doubt that Assad used chemical weapons, as, again, he has nothing to gain from it.)