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 awarded 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 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?”
Facebook
Twitter
Why Libya today is not Iraq 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/20/bergen.libya.us/index.html?iref=allsearch
Right on! Though I strongly believe we need to be helping out the rebel insurgency, I want the liberals to apologize for the demonization of Bush, as they have revealed themselves as full blown hypocrites.
A great point Tim. Obama’s supporters must must be tied in knots to explain this.
Exactly! War is not the answer (unless a Democrat is president)!
Excellent, well-written points! Awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was a slap in the face to everyone else who was awarded and actually deserved it. It’s disgusting that our President is playing around in Brazil while the world is in chaos right now.
Great article! I fully expect the libs to completely defend all of his decisions and refuse to see the gaping holes in their logic.
I would only disagree that the U.S. wasn’t provoked before the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein wasn’t cooperating with the inspections as per his agreement from the first Gulf War, and he was shooting at U.S. and British planes in the no-fly zone that was agreed upon along with the inspections. And then he starts looking around for yellow cake, and he even lies to his own generals about having WMD stashed away. There was plenty of provocation.
Great article, I especially like that you pointed out “No Congressional Approval”.
Obama versus Obama
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-president-does-not-have-power-unde
You forgot to put in the list:
Congress had a chance to vote for action
Bush – Yes Obama – No
This proves that the Marx Bros. are running the Country. This bombing comes out of nowhere. He is forcing us to even think of defending Gaddafi, who is in a civil war against the Muslim brotherhood. There is a real huge difference between these two scum-bags. However, Gaddafi is no threat to USA national security and we can get his oil somewhere else. Even if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over they will us oil because they all want a piece of this oil action. The only leader that will be taken down for this attack will be Obama.
Now if wanted to show leadership and do some real good in the middle east he should have bombed Teheran and the nuke sites in Iran and topple that government that has been killing US citizens since 1956. He picks on guy that can only yell on a TV monitor.
This just proves that being a community organizer doesn’t qualified you to be President. This proves that the damn leftist liberals will elect anyone into the White House. I hope this next year flies by for all of us so we can end this reign of total incompetence.
because you like quotes
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.
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. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
When does the truth ever come into play? How about Obama is honestly about why he’s going in and not making bullshit excuses? How about Obama has a plan and isn’t endangering countless American’s getting us in a situation we with no way out? How about we have the word support us instead of going rogue on this one? This is a pretty desperate article.
Great article, Tim. Love that opening line. Love the specifics.
and you always misrepresent UN resolution 1441. It did not support the use of force.
Security Council shall “remain seized of the matter.” Not all necessary means…
Here is a quote from the US ambassador
[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.
Thank you for that Wikipedia cut and paste; however, UN resolution 1441 doesn’t stand alone. It ties back to prior resolutions including UN resolution 678 from 1990, which explicitly authorized the use of force. This coupled with the “material breach” argument, which even Hans Blix says Iraq was in violation, provides the trigger (at least to an unbiased thinking person). But how is all this relevant to right now… to Nobel Peace Prize winning Obama, President of an unprovoked country, attacking Libya, a sovereign nation in the Middle East, without Congressional approval?
Just wanted to say that I am eployed at a big Pharmaceutical corporation in Clayton NC and I support Barack Obama with all my heart. I invite all my friends and colleagues to vote for Obama in 2012!! I LOVE YOU OBAMA
[...] And if all this wasn’t enough, Obama is now working with al-Qaeda in an effort to topple Libya for “humanitarian” reasons without prior approval from Congress despite four or five other [...]
[...] sweetheart deals, middle of the night votes and other high jinks, or the unconstitutional attack on Libya, or all the broken promise that stretch from Gitmo to Iraq and back, what positive changes is [...]
[...] sweetheart deals, middle of the night votes and other high jinks, or the unconstitutional attack on Libya, or all the broken promise that stretch from Gitmo to Iraq and back, what positive changes is [...]
[...] his Libya policy, President Obama declared, “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in [...]
[...] he did not close Gitmo as promise, and he – without Congressional approval – attacked Libya. Why did he attack Libya? Was it in our national interest? No. Was the United States under [...]
[...] he did not close Gitmo as promised, and he – without Congressional approval – attacked Libya. Why did he attack Libya? Was it in our national interest? No. Was the United States under imminent [...]
[...] time in history), not to mention his many broken promises (closing Gitmo, not just ending the wars, but starting a new one, no new taxes, and so on) – it’s no wonder Obama’s polling numbers are where they [...]