One of the problems that Barack Obama
has in mounting an attack against the Assad regime is that the gambit violates
every argument Barack Obama used against the Bush administration to establish
his own anti-war candidacy.
The hypocrisy is so stunning
that it infuriates his critics and stuns his supporters.
Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s
signature selling point. He used it to great effect against both Hillary
Clinton (who voted for the war) in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in
the general election. For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and
“Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters.
And now? His sudden pro-war stance
makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. First, the U.S. president can
attack a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress (unlike the Iraq
war when George W. Bush obtained authorization from both houses of Congress). Even if Obama
gets a no vote, he said that he reserves the right to strike.
Second, Obama assumes that the U.S.
must go it alone and attack unilaterally (unlike the coalition of the willing
of some 40 nations that joined us in Iraq).
Third, it is unnecessary even to
approach the UN (unlike Iraq when the Bush administration desperately sought UN
support).
Fourth, the U.S. president must make a
judgment call on the likelihood of WMD use, which is grounds ipso facto to go
to war (unlike Iraq when the vast majority of the 23 congressionally authorized
writs had nothing to do with WMD [e.g., genocide of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds,
bounties to suicide bombers, harboring of international terrorists, violations
of UN agreements, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, etc.]).
So review for a moment the Old Obama
case against the New Obama. . .
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.