« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama: War Hypocrite

It is official, Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winning President of an unprovoked country, has launched an attack on, Libya,
a Mideast country.  So much for that moral high ground Obama and the
Democrats claimed with the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  So much for Obama’s
“extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and
cooperation between peoples” as predicted by the Norwegian Nobel
Committee that issued Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.  So much for
that Obama rhetoric that the future of those Mideast countries “will be
determined by its people.”  Those days are over, Obama is a war hypocrite.

In October 2009, the Norwegian Nobel Committee award Obama the Nobel
Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international
diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”  Obama hadn’t even been
President of the United States for a month by the time he was nominated,
so this idea that Obama had produced extraordinary efforts to
strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples
didn’t exist. The Committee went on to say that “Only very rarely has a
person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and
given its people hope for a better future.” Obama viewed the decision
less as recognition of his own accomplishments and more as “a call to
action.”

Approximately 1.5 years later, Obama has not ended either the war in
Iraq, as promised.  He has not closed Guantanamo Bay, as promised.  He
has not ended the military tribunals, he once stopped.  And he did not
end the Patriot Act he once said he would vote to repeal.  He did,
however, launched 122 missiles into Libya over the weekend, according to
ABC News
Perhaps this is what the Nobel Committee was thinking of when they said
Obama makes extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy
and what Obama took as a call to action?

The moral high ground that Obama and Democrats claimed to have once
held is no more.  Democrats will argue that there are stark differences
between Iraq and Libya, that Bush wanted oil, or that the citizens of
Iraq didn’t need or want intervention, or that the assault on Libya is
somehow a humanitarian mission as opposed to the invasion of Iraq.  Here
are some similarities and contrasts between the assaults on the two
countries:

ACTION_________________ BUSH – IRAQ_       ___       OBAMA – LIBYA

Mideast Country                              Yes                                        Yes

Has Oil                                            Yes                                        Yes

U.S. unprovoked                              Yes                                        Yes

Leader Killed its Citizens                    Yes                                        Yes

Will Result in Democracy                  Yes                                        Yes

International Diplomacy                     Yes                                        Yes

U.N. approval                                   Yes                                        Yes

Sponsored Terrorism List                  Yes                                         No

Considered a Threat to U.S.               Yes                                         No

Congressional Approval                     Yes                                         No

Bush did everything right in the lead up to the conflict with Iraq,
including getting bipartisan congressional approval.  The same
intelligence that Bush used was used by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and
numerous other Democrats to cast their votes to invade Iraq.  Yet, this
information is seemingly and conveniently forgotten on Democrats today.

Obama and the Democrats won’t credit Bush for igniting the spark of
democracy in the Mideast.  No, they suggest the recent demonstrations
held by Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan,
Syria, Algeria, Iran and so on are organic revolutions that come from
within their own country’s borders, totally uninfluenced by the recent
elections in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While on vacation in Rio, Obama said, “We’ve seen the people of Libya
take a courageous stand against a regime determined to brutalize its
own citizens.  Across the region, we have seen young people rise up – a
new generation demanding the right to determine their own future. From the beginning, we have made clear that the change they seek must be driven by their own people.”

That’s great rhetoric when governments like Egypt and
Tunisia capitulate, but what happens when the governments of such
Mideast countries are determined to keep the order, even in a brutal
way?  So much for the Nobel Peace prize “international diplomacy,” and
so much for a people determining their own future… Obama goes on the war path.

If the crux of the issue is about a government brutalizing its own
citizens, why hasn’t Obama sent troops in to Sudan, Uganda, Ethiopia,
Chechnya, Burma, Uzbekistan?  Or if it is about human rights and
democracy, then why hasn’t Obama launched and attack on China, North
Korea, Nepal, or Cuba?  Why Libya?  Why not Iran, a country that has
called for the execution of opposition leaders?  Why not Saudi Arabia, a
country that has sent its military to crush the determination of its
people in Bahrain?  What is the standard and reasoning?  Democrats can
do all the Monday morning quarterbacking they want now, but in 2002-03,
the United States considered Iraq a national security threat.  Is Libya
currently considered a threat to the United States?  Nope.

The United States really can’t afford to be the World Police,
especially now.  While Obama is spending his March partying,
vacationing, golfing, and filling out his NCAA brackets, he really
shouldn’t be directing our troops to assist in another country’s
sovereign affairs.  It’s another financial burden our taxpayers can’t
afford to shoulder as we grapple with a ten trillion dollar Obama
presidency.

So, after Libya, what country is next?  Saudi Arabia?  Iran?  Which country will Obama, the war hypocrite, decide to attack next?  What is the “Obama Doctrine?”

Get Alerts