Posted on 09/05/2013 5:26:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
Sen. Barack Obama snatched the 2008 democratic nomination from Sen. Hillary Clinton for many reasons, none more important than Obama's opposition to the Iraq War.
All of Obama's major opponents -- Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. and then-Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y. -- had voted for authorization for war. Obama, then an Illinois state senator and a candidate for the U.S. Senate gave a speech in October 2002. He called it "a rash war... based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." Sen. Obama pre-emptively criticized President George W. Bush in 2007 for possibly taking military action against Iran's suspected nuclear sites -- should he do so without congressional approval. Such an action, Obama said then, would be in violation of the Constitution unless the President obtained congressional approval.
Flash forward. March 2011. President Obama joins the French and British in bombing Libya during that country's civil war. Libya had surrendered its weapons of mass destruction to the Bush administration in early 2004, fearing the same fate as the arrested and jailed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Obama describes the Libyan campaign as "humanitarian," but also consistent with our "core interests." He does not go to Congress.
Today, Obama supports military action against the Syrian government because it "crossed a red line" in its civil war by reportedly using chemicals to kill some 1,400 Syrians. Initially, Obama said he had authority to strike without Congress' approval, and that he did not intend to seek their permission. Time was of the essence, he said. The use of chemicals, says Obama, violates "international norms" requiring intervention -- and by the U.S. alone, says Obama, if necessary.
Then the British Parliament, for the first time since 1782, refused to give the prime minister authority for military action. Here, polls find Americans are overwhelmingly against military force in Syria. Obama abruptly announced that he would seek congressional approval -- but said he retained the power to act and refused to say whether he'd do so should Congress vote no.
Where was Obama's concern about chemical weapons during the 2002 debate on military action in Iraq? Obama opposed it despite Saddam's assumed possession of WMD and his use of chemical weapons on the Iranians and his own people. Of the intelligence community's assumption that Iraq possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- with the acquisition of nuclear weapons just a matter of time -- Obama had no doubt:
"I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
Obama opposed the Iraq War because "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Yet after 9/11, 90 percent of Americans expected a similar attack within 6 months to a year. Apart from using chemicals on his own people, Saddam was shooting at the British and American planes patrolling the "no-fly" areas protecting the Kurds and other ethnic groups; paying $25K to families of homicide bombers; stealing from the Oil-for-Food program; and was in violation of a number of U.N. resolutions to declare what he has done with his WMD and his nuclear program.
Still Obama called Iraq a "dumb war" orchestrated as "the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in (the Bush) administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats."
Obama also opposed the Iraq War for reasons that seem to apply to a Syrian intervention. "I know that an invasion of Iraq," he said then, "without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida." Wouldn't striking Syria "fan the flames of the Middle East? And isn't al-Qaida on the side of the "rebels" -- the side we support?
Regime change in Syria, says Obama, is not the goal. Rather, the objective is a "shot across the bow," designed to dissuade the Syrian government from further use of chemical weapons. U.S. credibility is on trial now that Obama foolishly talked about the "red line," which, if crossed, would "change his calculus."
But advisors and experts are, at best, uncertain about whether launching some missiles from an aircraft carrier will have any real effect in Syria. A symbolic strike, which appears to be the President's intention, could be interpreted by our enemies as weakness. "But," as then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama said on Iraq, "we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly."
One more thing -- Syria is a client state. How about we cut to the chase and have the debate we should be having: Whether to go to war against Iran, the world's leading exporter of terrorism?
I wish Obama would just “red line” himself out of existence.
O now is saying that he never drew a red line, it wasnt him, it was someone else , everyone else,
Obama is just an outsider looking in critically....he had nothing to do with where we are today, he inherited it all just this morning....after coming back from vacation....he heard it all about it on the news....but now he knows best how to fix it all (again) because he is the only one with clean hands in this.
What? You dont agree??? That’s because you is a racist.
Emperor Barack Obama
Doing Jobs The World Won't Do Since 2009
Democrats Suddenly Realize What They Miscalculated About the World: Everything
As we await Congress’ decision on authorizing the use of U.S. military force in Syria, Democrats are suddenly realizing that their foreign policy brain-trust completely misjudged the world.
Being nicer to countries like Russia will not make them nicer to you. The United Nations is not an effective tool for resolving crises. Some foreign leaders are beyond persuasion and diplomacy. There is no “international community” ready to work together to solve problems, and there probably never will be.
You can pin this on Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Susan Rice, but most of all, the buck stops with the president. Those of us who scoffed a bit at a state senator ascending to the presidency within four years on a wave of media hype and adoration are not quite so shocked by this current mess.
We never bought into this notion that getting greater cooperation from our allies, and less hostility from our enemies, was just a matter of giving this crew the wheel and letting them practice, as Hillary Clinton arrogantly declared it, “smart power” (and fronted Time magazine cover).
(These people can’t even label a foreign policy approach without reminding us of how highly they think of themselves.)
They looked out at the world at the end of the Bush years, and didn’t see tough decisions, unsolvable problems, unstable institutions, restless populations, technology enabling the impulse to destabilize existing institutions, evil men hungry for more power, and difficult trade-offs.
No, our problems and challengers were just a matter of the previous hands running U.S. foreign policy not being smart enough. (Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
==================================================
MONEY QUOTE: “Those of us who scoffed a bit at a state senator (with iffy Chicago baggage) ascending to the presidency within four years on a wave of media hype and adoration (not to mention voter fraud, voter intimidation, hyphenate solidarity, shady fund-raising, etc) are not quite so shocked by this current foreign policy mess.”....
“No Syrian Ever Called Me “Cracka!”
“Stay outta da Barracks!!!!”
I guess Obama thinks he IS the world.
(CNN) -- August 21, 2012Obama Warns Syria Not To Cross 'RED LINE'
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should heed U.S. warnings to neither use nor move chemical or biological weapons, lest he risk crossing a "red line" and provoke a U.S. military response, President Barack Obama said Monday.
"We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people," Obama told reporters at the White House. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime -- but also to other players on the ground -- that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.
"That would change my calculus; that would change my equation."
"We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that's a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons."
I heard and it sounds convincing is that Russia is p...ed off about what Obama did in Libya, that they went along with it assured by US that it was going to be limited (sound familiar?) action then had to watch while Obama bombedcand bombed and destroyed the valid government and turned the state over to terrorists and criminals.
So they have no intention of being suckered again.
As they said, a monkey with hand grenades.
“...As they said, a monkey with hand grenades....”
Even WORSE!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMMrPoBq0M
This video cracks me up every time I see it...
He sure the hell said there was a red line. The trouble with pathological liars is even they believe their own lies after awhile. They are sociopaths with a narcissistic disorder. There is no truth in them. What else would you expect from a man who worships a demon god?:
1:51 in he clearly says chemical weapons = red line
The chimp probably didnt understand how the gun works so in the abstract they could have grabbed it from him, but full grown chimps are supposed to be quite dangerous even without a gun. They bite and are quite strong.
JUST as the one idiot hands it to the li’l fella, you can hear another guy - who had a sudden flash of intelligence or premonition of disaster - call out “NO-NO-NO-NO-NO-NO!”
Nothing good ever happens when somebody is yelling that...
But man, could those guys DANCE!!!
I can see you are still having trouble accepting a black man in the white house HA-HA.
What is frustrating is that are many Americans, black wimmin being the most loyal, who will defend Obama no matter what he does or says or how bad he makes things. Watch all those BCC wimmin in congress who all hate any wars back Obama on this.
And they will call us racists for not joining them.
“...full grown chimps are supposed to be quite dangerous even without a gun. They bite and are quite strong....”
Do you remember, a few year ago, the woman who was keeping a full grown chimp as a pet?
It lost it’s mind one day, went berserk, attacked the lady’s girlfriend (from the 911 call: “IT’S EATING HER FACE!!!!”) and proceeded to TEAR THE DOOR off the police car that showed up to get at the cop... who promptly shot it’s ass dead...
I liked where he shows the chimp how to shoot.
I guess their standards for recruits are quite low in that African hellhole.
“...African hellhole...”
Wow...how racist!!!Don’t you know that it’s a Worker’s Utopian Paradise, where “white privilege” has been abolished, and all people live in peace, harmony, are well-fed, and ALL of their needs provided for???
Back to re-education for YOU, buckaroo!!!
RE Showing the Chimp how to shoot:
Nothing good ever comes from that... think “Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes”... How’d THAT work out, Huh!?!
Dont they work for the Chinese now?
Here’s another classic - off topic, but funny as hell..
Joe, the deer and the dog at the Stop N Go...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQXKqbjicTs
It’s an audio file...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.