Congressman Xavier Becerra voted against denying Obama funds to wage a war against Gaddafi and for Al Qaeda in Libya. He voted against asking Obama to “detail US security interests and objectives” in Libya.
He also voted against a commendation for US troops for their service in Iraq.
So if Becerra sounds like a typical lefty hypocrite, it’s because that is exactly what he is.
Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), the fourth-ranking House Democrat, laid out a three-part test he said President Obama must clear in order to win support from the Democratic caucus for renewed operations there.
First, they want evidence the Iraqis are taking diplomatic steps to keep themselves united as one country. Second, they want an explanation of the administration’s ultimate goal in applying force — an “endgame” strategy that justifies its use. And third, they want to know why a military intervention is in America’s best interest.
“Before we put an American in harm’s way, tell us why,” Becerra said Tuesday.
Becerra is, of course, a lying clown, since Obama has already said that no combat troops will be deployed. There is, a very distant possibility, of air strikes on Al Qaeda.
Does Becerra really want an explanation for why bombing Al Qaeda is in America’s interests?
“There’s a lot of concern about getting embroiled in another Vietnam and … about sending American troops once again to fight someone else’s war,” Becerra said after a closed-door meeting of the caucus in the Capitol.
What is Becerra even talking about? Vietnam?
We were already in Iraq. Is Becerra so relentlessly clueless and knee-jerk left that he has to aimlessly toss out Vietnam, when he can just critique engagement in Iraq based on an existing war?
It’s like Xavier Becerra is an idiot composed entirely of talking points he borrowed from decades ago.
But a Dem Anti-War rally wouldn’t be complete without a McDermott.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) is among the leery. The 13-term liberal said Obama’s choices are “very limited” considering the history of conflict in the region, America’s role in propping up al-Maliki and the sheer number of sects vying for power. He noted that the Vietnam War also began as a limited engagement.
“I’m old enough to remember John Kennedy sending a few advisers into Vietnam,” McDermott said. “I’m very worried we’ll get in and we’ll get mired down in something we don’t have any idea what to do [with].”
Again, what does Vietnam have to do with anything? We’ve been involved in Iraq long enough that it can be critiques on its own.
Why must McDermott keep turning his acid flashbacks into a policy critique?
But was McDermott equally opposed to a Libyan Vietnam? Is a Democrat ever opposed to helping Al Qaeda?
McDermott endorsed the call for a “No Fly Zone” which was underhanded regime change. He voted against banning armed forces deployment in Libya without Congressional approval.
And he was a big fan of Obama’s Libyan Vietnam… which turned over much of the country to Islamist militias, some aligned with Al Qaeda.
The way President George W. Bush took the United States to war in Iraq had no more trenchant critic than Seattle’s Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott.
Eight years later, he is endorsing a president for more deliberately entering into harm’s way.
As some on the left criticize President Obama, McDermott is praising the 44th president of his handling of military intervention to enforce a no-fly zone to protect Libyans from their murderous, not-often-rational dictator.
“He (Obama) did not rush out and do it like George Bush a decade before: He waited and got a United Nations Security Council resolution. He waited until the Arab League was on board.”
McDermott is, of course, a crazy liar. There was no UN Security Council approval for regime change or sustained bombing campaigns against the Libyan military. The No Fly Zone resolution was never meant to cover the things Obama did with it.
So McDermott is praising Obama for getting the UN and Arab League on board by lying to them. Both the UN and Arab League then blasted the US for its bombing campaign and called for an end.
“It was quite unlike Iraq where we blundered in with, what was the phrase for it, a ‘coalition of the willing’,” McDermott said.
Except Libya was another Coalition of the Willing.
The moral of the story is that Democrats are still complete hypocrites. Also they use Vietnam in every other sentence.