Obama’s Libya Venture and Double Standards


Pages: 1 2

The champion of shameless chutzpah has always been the guy who murders his parents then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan. But White House spokesman Jay Carney might be the new champ, given his response to the House vote not to authorize President Obama’s un-war in Libya: “We think now is not the time to send the kind of mixed message that it sends when we are working with our allies to achieve the goals that we believe are widely shared in Congress.”

A Democrat like Carney has to be brimming with chutzpah to talk about sending a “mixed message” to our allies and enemies. What did his party do for eight years but undercut with “mixed messages” President Bush’s foreign policy? Bush was “working with our allies” in Iraq and Afghanistan to pursue the presumably “widely shared goals” of making us secure by destroying jihadist bases, taking out dysfunctional regimes that facilitated terrorism, and replacing them with democratic governments. And unlike Obama and his Libyan adventure, he obtained Congressional approval for both wars. But once the tin-pot Jacobin Howard Dean gained political traction by exploiting a left-wing-organized anti-war movement, major Democratic politicians felt no compunction in undercutting our efforts, knowing full well that we are fighting an enemy who knows it can not win on the battlefield, but only by destroying our morale––precisely the strategy that those “mixed messages” aided and abetted.

In 2007, for example, then-Senator Barack Obama bitterly opposed the “surge” of troops to Iraq that succeeded in turning that conflict around. Chanelling the antique “Vietnam syndrome,” Obama called the surge a “mistake” and a “reckless escalation,” and introduced legislation to remove all U.S. combat forces by the end of March 2008. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent Bush a letter calling the surge “a serious mistake.” Democrats in both houses of Congress introduced non-binding resolutions rejecting the surge. Harry Reid notoriously announced in April 2007 that “this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything.” Joe Biden agreed a few months later: “We need to stop the surge and start to get our troops out.” After violence in Iraq declined as a result of the surge and General Petraeus’ counter-insurgency strategy, Senator Dick Durbin accuse the General and the President of manipulating statistics, and Senator Hillary Clinton said that the General’s report to Congress required “a willing suspension of disbelief.”

Pages: 1 2

  • Amused

    Talk about "shameless " ? What about McConnel;s blurted statement , that if it was a Republican President , there would be less criticism of US foreign policy towards Libya , and then defered to McCain's statement , that it was a necessarry action . Partisanship trumps National Security .

  • Wesley69

    Necessary action??? Why??? To save the rebels??? Do we even know who these rebels are, what they believe??? We have NO strategic interest in Libya. It is an illegal war, not sanctioned by Congress and they should pull the rug out from under this President unless he makes his case and asks for a resolution to allow action. That is how it is done. That was what Bush did in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    As for Obama's foreign policy of being dismissive of our friends and allies, appeasement of our enemies and diminishing US power both economically and militarily have been a disaster that may never be straightened out.

    Appeasement, for sure, does not work in the international arena, not when everyone else is playing the power game. Have we learned nothing from history. Munich, 1938 lead directly to WWII. Dictators respect power and nothing more. Apologies. "Leading from Behind", renaming terrorism as man-caused disasters, announced timelines are viewed as weakness and exploited by the enemy.

    If the US totally disarmed, destroying all its nukes, would all other nations follow suit? Or if the US surrendered our sovereignty to the UN, would other nations follow our example???This is a fantasy.

    Even in our fairy tales, there are the forces of good and evil that do battle. Why this administration refuses to recognize this is a serious question. Do we think we are so smart that we don't need to listen to the lessons of the past and chart a totally new course and that the world will simply follow as if we were the Pied Piper??? Another question is can the US survive another 4 years under Obama's leadership with his fantasy-driven world view. That I have the answer for. It is a definite, NO!!!!!!!!

  • koby

    WHY IS THE US NOT A SIGNITORY TO THE ICC?THE US TROOPS COMITING MURDER IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD WOULD BE POLITICALLY TARGETED!WE AFRICANS ALSO KNOW THAT THE ICC’S REPUTATION IS QUESTIONABLE!IT IS A WESTERN COURT TO IMPLICATE THE SO CALLED THIRD WORLD!WE AFRICANS HAVE TO STAND AND DENOUNCE THE ICC,UN AND THE IMF BECAUSE ALL THESE GROUPS ARE NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST!WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER ECONOMICALLY AND FORM OUR OWN GROUPS AND AN AFRICAN ARMY THAT CONSIST OF 1MILLION STRONG AND WILLING AFRICANS!WE NEED TO STOP OUR DEPENDANCY ON THE WEST!YES WE CAN NO MATTER WHAT WE GOT TO FACE NOW SO AS FOR OUR GRAND CHILDEREN TO ENJOY OUR LAND INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FLEE TO THE WEST!THEY CAN ALL MAKE. A CHANGE IN OUR COMMUNITIES!THE AFRICAN YOUTH OF TODAY IS DIFFERENT AND WE MUST TAKE UP THE FIGHT OUR ANCESTORS BEGUN!TOGETHER WE ARE A FORCE!ARISE AND SHINE MY PEOPLE!

  • BLJ

    Obama the dictator getting his way once again. It is a shame that the idiots who voted for this guy in 2008 are still too stupid to realize what they have done.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    While I agree with the writer that the left’s attacks on Bush’s foreign policy was to say the least extremely unhinged and incredibly unpatriotic, at the same time the Bush foreign policy in which the writer is praising in admiration was also about as unhinged, incompetent, and inept as it possibly gets. Although any policy put fourth by the left at the same time would have been exponentially more idiotic no doubt.

    First of all, both nation building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq were about as fantasy based as it gets, because it is literally impossible to win the hearts and minds of Muslims who are obligated per Islam to have nothing but enmity in their hearts for unbelievers and also because poverty, despair, and hopelessness thank goodness have exactly nothing whatsoever to do with the reason why Muslims are waging jihad against unbelievers around the world.

    Meanwhile, while Bush foolishly tied up our military pursuing unwinnable fantasy based nation-building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are really the two biggest strategic blunders in American history, at the same time he also enabled Iran to pursue nuclear weapons with impunity and funded Pakistan’s jihad against America in Afghanistan and Pakistan with 2 billion dollars a year in foreign aid, while also helping to finance Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal buildup.

    In any event, if the so-called surge in Iraq and the Iraq war are glorious victories, then the writer of this piece needs to please explain why Iraq recently announced that it is going to closely align with Iran’s military to secure the region as soon as the USA finally pulls out of that God forsaken Islamic hellhole later on this year. If that is the writer’s definition of success and victory, then lord please help us all!

    Furthermore, if the writer of this piece believes that Afghanistan, which like Iraq is also a Sharia state that was created under Bush’s watch, can somehow also be a victory like Iraq, then the writer needs to explain how he figures that a Sharia state will remain the loyal friend and reliable ally of the USA once we finally leave that other God forsaken Islamic hellhole.