Obama’s Self-Serving Hypocrisy on Protecting Civilians


On March 28, 2011, Obama informed the American people that he had gone to war in Libya (without calling it a war) to protect the poor people of Benghazi.

Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.

At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared that he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we had seen him hang civilians in the streets and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi — a city nearly the size of Charlotte — could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen

I think we all know how that worked out. But Obama’s justification for war was sheer nonsense considering that he had claimed that military intervention to protect civilians was not legitimate.

As he campaigned in New Hampshire, in 2007, Obama said that he would not leave troops in Iraq even to stop genocide. “Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have three hundred thousand troops in the Congo right now, where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife, which we haven’t done,” he said. “We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done.”

Now after threatening Assad and drawing a fake red line, Obama’s people are defaulting to, “How is it our business?”

“How can we attack another country unless it’s in self-defense and with no Security Council resolution?” an unnamed Obama administration official tells the paper. “If he drops sarin on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?”

When Kissinger said that sort of thing, the New York Times blasted him as a heartless monster. When Obama’s people say it, then he’s a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

But more to the point, it outs Obama’s hypocrisy. It’s an admission that Obama’s phony claim of getting into the Libyan War in order to protect the poor civilians of Benghazi was a sham. It was always a sham.

Obama does not care about anybody’s civilians. He never did. When he begins war, it’s for an agenda that is entirely unrelated to the safety of civilians on the ground. And the Obama official has admitted it now.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    The Obama regime went into Libya to operate an illegal, covert weapons running operation to supply the Brotherhood Mafia, chiefly through the war in Syria. In fact, Samantha Powers – a VERY dangerous woman, wifey of Cass Sunstein – designed R2P precisely to cover up said missions.
    In fact, the citizens are more imperiled after Obama's illegal war than under crazy Qadaffi, at least he kept the Islamists at bay!
    In effect, the push into Libya is reflected herein – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/29/benghazigates

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • tagalog

    Lauryn Hill has just joined the ranks of just about every American conservative: she failed to pay about $970,000 in state and federal taxes on the ground that since she earned the money, she shouldn't have to give the government a part of it. God bless her!

    I bet if she thought about it for an hour or so, she'd be mortiied to find herself on the right-wing side.

    C'mon, Mr. Prez, call off the IRS! Defend this beautiful sister! Where's the Department of Justice?

    • guest

      And you are an idiot. I am a conservative and I pay my taxes. Seems you have forgotten how many cabinet members your prez tried to get in his cabinet and couldn't because they owed back taxes. They seemed to have disappeared except old Rangle and he would lie to Jesus Christ!

  • tagalog

    They've ALL been my Presidents. How about you?

    I don't like people cheating on their taxes; I like people who take the position that they earned the money and they should be entitled to say where it goes, not the government. But I realize that's a bit subtle for you.

    I distinguish slightly between people who vote against politicos who campaign on raising taxes and people who vote for them. Cheating on one's taxes is always bad, but more understandable when those who opposed the tax-raiser are the ones found to be cheating.

    I thought those tax cheat appointees to high federal position were in the Clinton administration. Maybe I've got it wrong.

  • BLJ

    Obama is the anti-Christ.

    • tagalog

      That's giving him too much credit.

      • BLJ

        Come to think of it you are right. He is just pure EVIL.

    • Softly Bob

      He is not THE Antichrist but he is an anti-christ, definitely.

  • tagalog

    I tend to think of him as an anal pore. I would say a misguided anal pore, but I also think he's not misguided; he's doing exactly as he's been guided in life by the several Marxists and Soviet Communists, black and white, that he's been hanging around with all of his life.

    He needs badly to be knocked off his track. As a "Teflon President," so far he's made Ronald Reagan look like a piker. I don't know how he gets away with it.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “If he drops sarin on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?”

    Permission from the Saudis is obviously what we need before taking any military actions. Come on people. What did you expect?

    Don't worry, the Saudis hate Assad and it has nothing to do with anything he's actually done.

  • DDay66

    We all know that the Left's "compassion" is a myth. They are the type of people that would see a person laying in the streets in a pudle of blood and would be more worried about getting blood on their new birkenstocks while stepping over the injured person. They proved that without a doubt in Iraq, where they emphatically said they disagreed with eliminating a monster who butchered over a million people, mostly for amusement. But we didn't find any WMD's, so in the Prog's mind it just wasn't worth it.

  • Jerry S

    "When Kissinger said that sort of thing, the New York Times blasted him as a heartless monster. When Obama’s people say it, then he’s a Nobel Peace Prize winner."

    Daniel, I'm a great admirer of your writings. I just wanted to point out 2 things.
    1. The NY Times did not portray Kissinger as a "heartless monster." They merely quoted the reactions of Jewish leaders and newspapers. (which is not to say he was not a court Jew..)
    2. Kissinger also received a Nobel Peace Prize, so I guess he and Obama do have something in common – callousness.