Ladies and gentlemen, the Wall Street Journal:

Liberating Afghanistan, like the various bailouts and stimuli, was a direct response to an immediate crisis, whereas liberating Iraq, like ObamaCare, was a response to a chronic problem. Thus one could argue that ObamaCare is the domestic equivalent of a "war of choice."

But the comparison sells President Bush short in a way that is independent of the merits of the policies. Whereas Obama seems to think the country owes it to him to accept ObamaCare because he was kind enough to agree to be our president, Bush actually made an effort to persuade the public--including the opposite party--that his plan for Iraq was a good idea. The effort was very successful: Congress authorized the use of military force with strong bipartisan majorities, and by early 2003, public approval of the plan was in the 70% range.

Republican politicians did not label opponents of the war effort "un-American," as Steny Pelosi and Nancy Hoyer have done to ObamaCare foes. Bush's White House, unlike Obama's, did not urge supporters to report "fishy" pro-Saddam arguments. Bush did not tell his critics to shut up and "get out of the way," as Obama did last week. The Bush administration simply made a compelling argument and won. The Obama administration, on the verge of losing after making a poor argument, now is lashing out at its critics--which seems a strategy to maximize the damage of this effort.

That is crazy talk!

It should also be noted that the Wall Street Journal is a division of News Corp. owned by Rupert Murdoch. You know, the guy who also happens to own Fox "news".

You might also want to check out the author of the story, James Taranto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Taranto

Remember, News Corp. Purchase the W.S.J. back in 2007, so its likely that it might eventually devolve into another Fox "news" outlet. My advice: read the New York Times or the Washington Post instead.