Posted on 03/28/2011 11:31:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
IF a few billion dollars' worth of cruise missiles, bombs and jet fuel rid the world of Moammar Gadhafi, then it is money well spent.
But there are sharp contrasts between President Bush's painful decision to invade Iraq and President Obama's unauthorized attack on Libya exactly eight years later, and the differences should not go unnoticed.
Obama contradicts himself.
In 2002, he delivered a stirring speech against the war in Iraq.
"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression," Obama said.
"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."
Back in 2002, Obama also said Saddam Hussein was a bad guy.
"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history," Obama said.
Dustbin of history?
Tell that to Fidel Castro. Kim Jong-Il.
Heck, tell it to Gadhafi, who seized control of Libya on my 16th birthday.
I am now 57.
Maybe in 2002 Obama was simply young and foolish.
But five years later, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, as a presidential candidate, showed how little he had learned.
"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama said to reporter Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe.
"As commander-in-chief, the president does have a duty to protect and defend the United States.
"In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.
"History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch."
President Obama on Saturday did everything the left falsely accused Bush of doing in Iraq.
Bush had a Coalition of the Willing of 30 nations, including the fledgling government of Afghanistan; its bases were crucial to the mission.
Obama went into Libya with only 16 allies.
Bush made the final decision to invade Iraq with congressional approval after six months of debate.
President Obama acted in the case of Libya without any national debate or congressional approval.
A few diehards on the left - Dennis Kucinich, Michael Moore and the like - protested against the attack on Libya, but most liberals are silent.
The New York Times, in an editorial, even praised Obama, ignoring the issue of congressional approval
Do not get me wrong. Obama was wrong in 2002. The War Powers Act of 1973 indeed authorizes Obama to take action.
In 1986, President Reagan used the same War Powers Act to order a raid on Libya. Liberals were outraged.
This is "foreign relations as conceptualized by Lewis Carroll: the United States is virtually at war with Libya and American reporters are covering events in the enemy country," one newspaper editorial said at the time.
"Under this absurd circumstance couldn't the United States have devised some plan other than terror to convince Khadafy (sic) that terror is a tactic unprofitable for all?"
That newspaper was silent on President Obama's even larger attack on the same nation 25 years later.
I thank President Obama for not only going after Gadhafi, but also for exposing what a bunch of hypocrites he and most of his supporters are.
Well, not really.
The "problem", is that, in the context of international affairs, the US is run by 30+ career level bureaucrats - Not by the elected people in the Congress or the White House.
Case in point - in the long run, you really won't see much difference between George Bush's position and Obama current decisions' on the outcome of Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
The Liberals are falling all over themselves trying to justify and defend the Obama actions. They are truely disgusting and pathetic.
Mr Surber, when Democrats do it, it ain’t war.
FRiend, Obama does indeed contradict himself; 30+ career level bureaucrats notwithstanding.
The fact that Obama’s effective foreign policy position compliments the established policies set forth by Bush does not preclude the contradictions Obama’s responsible for.
“Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?” - Barack 0bama; “The Audacity of Hope”
Come on man,
Billy boy clinton attacked females and exploited others sexually and NOW embraces the prevert.
Obummer said he’d close gitmo, stop the Iraq war, win Afganistan quickly and set Americas financial problems in order.
Anyone believe anything this unAmerican quota boy says is a fool.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.