Tuesday, March 22, 2011

President Obama vs. Candidate Obama

As anyone who reads this already knows, we are currently involved in a military conflict in Libya. Does anyone remember what the reaction was when GWB went into Iraq? He was questioned, chastised and ridiculed for doing so, even though Saddam had violated UN resolutions and even though Congress had authorized the use of force in Iraq.

That right folks, that Constitution hating George W. Bush got approval from Congress before going to war. Constitution hating President Barack H. Obama didn't bother with silly things like getting Congress to authorize the use of force against Libya. Things like that are for little people, and Mr. Narcissist-in-Chief" is not "little people."

Here are Candidate Obama's own words from 2007 regarding the Constitutional use of military force. Remember that this man taugh Constitutional law. (which explains why most Americans are so damn ignorant)

"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."

I guess there should be an addendum to the above statement that says "unless I am the President." I don't think anyone can even attempt to honestly say that Libya is an actual or imminent threat to the U.S. They have almost no military, no WMD's (suspected or actual) and are really not much of a threat to anyone. Gadafi isn't a serious threat to anyone except for the Libyan people. If he were engaged in genocide we might have reason to act, but he is not. That said, we let genocides occur all the time without taking unliateral military action.

As for Obama's war, he's making Bush look like a master planner. Not even the Liberal MSM can figure out what our "goal" is in this conflict. What U.S. interests does this serve? President Obama sure can't seem to explain himself.

I don't even want to speculate what the media onslaught would look like right now if President McCain or President Palin decided to go to war with Libya without even trying to get the support of a Democratically controlled Congress. How many times do you think we'd hear the word "warmonger?"

There's also a little issue of the "rebels" we're supporting not being a concrete group with one descernible political ideology. We really have no clue who we're supporting here. I mean it's not as if our history of both propping up and helping topple dictators in the Middle East has been a foreign policy success for the United States. It seems we repeat the same old mistakes over and over again. Sigh...

H/T to Breda


Atlanta Roofing said...

Libya should handle its own problems. The U.S. should stay out. This country is going to end up like the former Soviet Union---ba¬nkrupt from war. The fact that Bush never abided by the U.S. Constituti¬on is any reason that Obama should follow the same path. Obama could set a new course, but he hasn't. The prediction is that we will be in Libya forever besides Afghanista¬n and Iraq. There seems to be no end to war.

Chris said...

I think you could go on and on forever with a title like this. For him and just about every other politician.

Anonymous said...

we will stay at war until our own country unites and finishes a war rather than go in get tired and want out. everybody wanted to destroy the enemy after 911, than it seemed like the next day everybody that backed president bush in going into war hated him for being there. nobody cared why we were there anymore they just wanted out and it was bush's fault for being there. and now obama goes into libya for no reason and nobody says anything.