Attack now and worry about consequences later? You mean like Libya? Wasn't that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debacle? How about Yemen? Seems like stupid interventions are bipartisan to me.
please list which military units were deployed on the ground there. I'm not talking about covert ops or spooks either. I'm talking about regular ground troops. I'll wait
And if that were the only consideration then you might have a point. How much money was wasted in Libya? How many innocent lives lost due to the bombing and subsequent civil war and tribal genocide that occurred because the U.S. destabilized the country? What interventions will come from the U.S., meaning more money and more lives wasted, in an attempt to clean up the mess that was caused by the initial interventions? The U.S. attacked those countries with no thought or care to the consequences, and those are Democrats.
money wasted? Compared to vietraq? A pittance. Your point?
BTW- "looking the other way" in re: dictators isn't an attribute. I can't believe I had to tell you that
That more money has been wasted elsewhere is irrelevant. Money was wasted in Libya by Democrats, and their intervention has led to genocide and civil war, which is not to mention the innocent lives lost during the actual bombing itself. And Libya is just one example.
Looking the other way in regards to dictators sucks, but it sure beats removing a dictator to open the way for civil war and genocide. How many times does that scenario have to play out? Furthermore, it ignores the fact that plenty of dictators are close personal friends to people like Obama and Hillary. See their moving words about the brutal dictator who just died in Saudi Arabia.