War Party B is enthusiastic about funding the massacre of civilians in Gaza. That War Party B is not War Party A is no argument in its favor. That would be a non sequitur. It only matters where you're forced to choose. You are not. Judge War Party B on its own merits.
War Party B is enthusiastic about funding the massacre of civilians in Gaza. That includes
Nobel peace hero Obama, of course. You know how power (the boss) gives the
orders and the person down the line does the thing? War Party B is
power. They aren't the only ones responsible, but they're as responsible
as anyone. They're not being pushed around by mean Rethuglicans, gosh I
wish they had some backbone, or whatever. No one's dragging them from
their mansions to their jobs in their fancy cars against their will.
They have backbone, and they're using it to enthusiastically fund the
massacre of civilians in Gaza.
If War Party A disappeared tomorrow, War Party B would splinter into two new factions, War Party C and War Party D, and one of them would be painted as effeminate cowards, and would respond that their rivals are always invading and killing the wrong non-life-valuing heathens for their own good at the wrong times, that they need to be smarter and less crass about the whole thing. And then a whole bunch of well-meaning (I use the term loosely) fools from Krugman to Chomsky will throw their weight, perhaps with reservations, behind one War Party or the other, and they'll push you to do the same.