The Change which Hope has brought us

Barry once again follows the Booosh mantra. Somehow though, to the kool eyed crazed koz kids, Its Barry and he’s smart and wise and oh so cool.

MoveOn morons.

The change is that in 2003 it was the US that lead the coalition, today it’s France because the US is currently incapable of leadership.

obama is a follower. Sarkozy got sick and tired of waiting for him to act and so took the reins himself. Thank God at least our allies have some leaders even if we do not.

Well, let’s not be too naive around here.

2003 was a man’s war to liberate a country and to remove a grave threat to the U.S. and to regional stability.

2011 is a child’s dog & pony show to give an empty suit a bit of street cred. next fall in competitive red states.

BHO does have to ask for now he should have invoked the Wars Powers act.

The Arab league has Air Forces and Armies why don’t they do this instead of the Western World.
Arab Street do something.

Nah.

The UN called for action and Barry believes that the UN trumps US sovereignty.

Even without that he still believes that the Presidency is all powerful. But the what do you expect when he is surrounded by people who think the three branches of government are the House, Senate and President.

Oh my God…

This is hands down the best comment on obama:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/117072/

Encapsulates the spirit of Hope and Same perfectly.

Iraq turned out so well for the the US, why not burn up a few hundred billion over Libya? It’s not like we don’t have the money. . . .

I’m sure Iraq will be a strong US ally in the years ahead and will show great gratitude for their liberation, being a bulwark against the Iranians.

Price of one Tomahawk missile: at least $500,000. The US launched at least 56 of them last night = $28,000,000. Well, thank God we didn’t spend that on bridges or rail projects in the US, or even worse, health care for homeless people.

The ‘Will of the UN’ should be utterly irrelevant in ANYTHING.

Yes we can, oh yes we can.

Hopey Hopey Change Change.

…. the will of most of NATO and the UN ….

We are both of those.

For as long as it suits us to so be.

Bush’s Iraq invasion = a hundred thousand US committed ground troops, against the will of most of NATO and the UN, and against the will of even our allies in the middle East

Certain lies can’t be left to stand.

Most of NATO allies came along with us.

There were quite a few outstanding UN resolutions that backed taking out Saddam.

J.

“Most of the Left will sit on their hands since their Golden Child is involved. Of course, he’s “involved” from RIO!”

“Plausible deny-ability”. It all turns to crap, Barry can claim he ‘was out of town’.

The One is only around to claim credit. Everything else is Bush’s fault.

jim m @ 26,

And let us not forget that President George W. Bush took his case before the American Public and the Congress and that we thus had a debate resulting in a vote by the Congress to Authorized the Use of Military Force prior to the invasion of Iraq. BHO seems to have skipped that step here.

Rodney,

Do you really expect that obama would allow himself to be constrained by a Constitution that he has declared to be “Seriously flawed” for the very reason that it does not allow the government to act against the will of the people?

Obeying the Constitution is for the little people. Lesser Presidents will have to obey the Constitution, but obama is above such trivial things since he has such transcendent wisdom that he cannot allow his brilliant genius to be inhibited by such tawdry ideas like the law.

Rodney,

I agree. I too expect a President to uphold his oath. However, my question was whether or not we should expect obama to do so. Given his previous statements and his behavior since taking office I think the answer is that to expect him to follow the Constitution is extremely naive.

We had 10 years of No Fly zone in Iraq.
He was an enemy he refused to allow the weapons inspections happen. We know why he was making money hand over fist from the Oil for Food Scandal that France, Russia and member’s of the UN were engaged in. It was the Frances and Russia greed for Oil that lead to the invasion of Iraq. That being said we had the debate the left loss which in there minds means we had no debate because there words are so good the could sway any ones thinking.

Fast forward to today. Who are we supporting? What are the goals of the Rebels? When they win will they support the USA or will it be Like Castro? If we care about civilians being attacked what happened in Iran? Will we being going up against Saudi family?

Now we hear the Arab league did not like the missile attack.
What is the exit strategy? What is victory?

Jay Tea, glad to see you actually respond to a comment of mine this time. You’re correct, I quite overstated the case when I said “most of Nato”, if we’re going by a list of nations. However, our strongest allies besides Britain – Germany and France – both were quite against the Iraq invasion. As you all well know.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2683409.stm

And as you also well know, those UN resolutions were nearly all regarding WMD – which the inspectors found no evidence for when they begin inspections after 2001 – at which point we invaded anyway.

Which forced Bush to assemble a “coalition of the willing” – because the UN itself was unwilling to back it. And Bush also filled this coalition with symbolic support from former Eastern bloc countries in exchange for supporting their being brought into NATO.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-24-unwilling-cover_x.htm

These are key points of history, which we all lived through, and which we would all do well to deal with. Rather than attempt to delete because they offend an ideological view of the world.

The worldview should be shifted to suit the facts, and not the other way around, don’t you think?

Great then maybe you could change your world view to address the fact that Bill Clinton’s administration thought that Hussein had and active WMD development program.

Lefties are so quick to claim that this was a lie, but if so it was a lie that was developed for 8 years by Bill Clinton.

Own it. Deal with it. If you don’t like the WMD issue you have no one but the dems to blame for it.

and @ 37, my worldview already knows that. Saddam DID have WMD’s during the Clinton administration. What the facts also show is that the Clinton administration successfully dealt with the WMD’s via sanctions and inspections – because when inspectors went back in 2001 to 2003, they found nothing.

As we all know, the tons of uranium was **already known, isolated and secured** before the invasion. It wasn’t even a factor. Ditto for the ingredients of WMD’s, etc. Then after the invasion, all that was found was either new things cooked up AFTER the invastion by Al Qaeda, or weapons that were no longer destructive enough to kill a soldier if it fell on him.

But so it goes.

Mr. Graves, I’ll just point you back to # 36. The French aren’t the point. The point is, the fact that **even the French** can support the no-fly-zone shows, yet again, just how different these two conflicts are.

Mr. Graves, would the French being on a different side seem to indicate that the two actions are different? Yes or no?

If yes, that means the main supposition of this article is wrong.

This is the point you appear to be missing.

More on Fwance’s NATO “membership.”

NATO may have contracted “the French Disease.”

Dan Miller | PJ Tattler

According to the Financial Times (subscription may or may not be required), French sidestepping of NATO at the beginning of military operations in Libya has divided the no-fly-zone coalition. On March 21, French and German ambassadors to NATO walked out after the secretary general faulted France for impeding NATO involvement and Germany for not participating actively.

Turkey is said to be offended because her representatives had not been invited to a “summit” in Paris. There are also tensions between the United States and Britain on one hand and France on the other. One western official is reported to have said,

As we got closer and closer to closing the deal at NATO, France suddenly blocked everything, which confused us at first … But then it became clear – [French president Nicolas] Sarkozy wanted to announce strikes just as he was walking out of his meeting in Paris where he was leading the show.”

France denied all charges.

Perhaps there is something to be said for better United States leadership in international matters. Quo vadis?

Almost as useless as the Democrats. Then again, it’s well understood now that going to war without the frogs or the donkeys is no bar to victory.

Mr. beach,

Don’t go away mad…