The Change which Hope has brought us

Then…

19 March, 2003
‘American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military
operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world
from grave danger’…

Now

19 March, 2011
‘Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the
calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the
United States and the world’…

Seems like a rather insignificant “change” to this observer.

Hat Tips: Glen “Instapundit” Reynolds and Matt Drudge.
]]>< ![CDATA[

Candidate Obama vs President Obama

Shortlink:

Posted by on March 19, 2011.
Filed under Foreign Affairs, History, Iraq, Libya.
Tagged with: .


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • 914

    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.

  • Rodney Graves

    Now we’ll see if the “Anti-War” movement is really anti-war or anti-Republican. I’m betting on the later.

  • jim m

    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.

  • Rodney Graves

    jim m,

    But was that (the transition of leadership away from the United States) the Change they (the Obama voting electorate) were Hoping for?

  • Caesar Augustus

    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.

  • recovered liberal democrat

    W. had Congressional approval. Obamalala didn’t even bother to ask.

  • hcddbz

    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.

  • GarandFan

    Is Barry going to have to give back his “Peace Prize”?

  • jim m

    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.

  • Gmac

    Irony is lost on the bumbling boob.

    As others have stated, we do not have a leader at the helm, he’s not even a very good follower as he cannot be trusted to commit to a specific goal.

  • jim m

    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.

  • 914

    Barry is committed to a specific goal alright.

    New World Order.

  • Chico

    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. . . .

  • Brett

    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. . . .

    Iraq was/is a *brilliant success* – a fragile but functioning democracy. And deficits under Bush were in the hundreds of billions – this year they are several TRILLION.

    Well played, troll…

  • Chico

    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.

  • http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com jim x

    Perhaps the difference you’re not recalling is, 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, in a war that made and has continued to make the US less safe.

    Whereas this current action appears unlikely to risk more US troops than those flying planes, has the backing of NATO and the UN. Which means also that Obama has avoided the US becoming the fall guy for what the rest of the world wants.

    Just keeping it real guys.

  • Ryan M.

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

  • James H

    I’m actually OK with France having the lead on this one. Regardless of our motivations for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States nevertheless got flak for everything that went wrong in those two countries after the invasions … and honestly, it’s a headache I’m not interested in having. Let France deal with it this time.

  • CZ

    Yes we can, oh yes we can.

    Hopey Hopey Change Change.

  • http://www.freerepublic.us Brian_R_Allen

    …. 19 March, 2011 – Today we are part of a broad coalition, are answering the call of a threatened people and are acting in the interests of the United States and the world …

    Nope.

    Today we are the part of a Euro-peon coalition that is going through the motions of answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting that way in the interests of allowing the Euro-peons’ Neo-Soviet’s on and offshore states to continue with their smoke and mirrors pretencethey are capable of taking such action.

    Their living room floor. Our marbles.

  • http://www.freerepublic.us Brian_R_Allen

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

    We are both of those.

    For as long as it suits us to so be.

  • sam

    What’s with this talk of money?

    The Chinese are paying for it.

    And before you bring up debt, remember that it is not debt if we have neither the ability nor the intention of repaying.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Jay Tea

    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.

  • Justrand

    thanks for setting the record straight in comment #23, Jay.

    Sadly, as your comment contained actual FACTS it will be disregarded by jim x, et al.

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

  • GarandFan

    “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

    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

    Let’s see…

    17 UN Security Council resolutions = against the will of the UN.

    Going to war with a coalition consisting of:
    Albania
    Armenia
    Australia
    Azerbaijan
    Bosnia and Herzegovina
    Bulgaria
    Czech Republic
    Demark
    Dominican Republic
    El Salvadore
    Estonia
    Georgia
    Honduras
    Hungary
    Iceland
    Italy
    Japan
    Kazakhstan
    Latvia
    Lithuania
    Macedonia
    Moldova
    Mongolia
    Netherlands
    New Zealand
    Nicaragua
    Norway
    Philippines
    Poland
    Portugal
    Romania
    Singapore
    Slovakia
    South Korea
    Spain
    Thailand
    Tonga
    Ukrain
    United Kingdom

    = against the will of NATO.

    And if the middle eastern nations SO wanted to stop this, why did not a single one EVER come to Saddam’s defense?

    Sucks when someone points out that your bullshit narrative doesn’t match up with reality. Maybe you should stop reading your talking points and start reading some history.

  • Rodney Graves

    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.

  • 914

    Private Ghadaffy has oodles of mustard gas at his disposal.

    Are those the WMD’s Barry is looking for? He wont find them on the links in RIO.

  • jim m

    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 Graves

    jim m @ 29,

    Why yes, I do require that the President of the United States uphold his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

  • jim m

    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.

  • Rodney Graves

    jim,

    I said nothing about expectations. I stated that I require that the President of the United States, who works for us, uphold his oath. Failure to uphold the oath rises to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and is grounds for removal from office.

  • hcddbz

    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?

  • hyperboist

    Will we being going up against Saudi family?

    Doubt it. You’re selling them a wing of F-15s and training their pilots and support personnel on U.S. soil.

    Makes sense to me. It’s not like most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, right?

  • http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com jim x

    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?

  • Rodney Graves

    jim @ 35 seems to be un-aware that the Fwench withdrew all of their forces from NATO’s unified command structures starting in 1959, and required all non-Fwench forces to leave Fwance in 1966.

    Some allies those Fwench.

    All in all going to war without the Fwench is like going hunting without a bagpipe band.

    The UN resolutions were requiring that Iraq prove to outside inspectors that they had destroyed all their chemical weapons and abandoned their Nuclear ambitions. Considering we found and removed 200 Tons of LEU (Low Enriched Uranium) and the vast amounts of Nerve Agent precursors we found, makes the observation that “no WMD’s were found” both a truthful statement and a damn lie with regards to WMD programs.

    The NATO expansion to the East (and the former Warsaw Pact satellites of the former Soviet Union) was already in progress before the events of 9-11 and the formation of the Coalition of the Willing. An inconvenient fact which you have lightly elided over since it does not support your thesis.

    Pluck first the beam from thine own eye, Beach.

  • jim m

    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.

  • http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com jim x

    @ 36, whether or not you like the French isn’t the question. The question is if you are comparing Bush’s invasion of Iraq to Obama’s support of a no-fly zone, **even the French** are going along with the no-fly zone.

    And as indicated by the article, the eastern bloc nations expected support from the US for NATO in return for their support of the Iraq invasion.

  • http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com jim x

    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.

  • Rodnehy Graves

    Liking the Fwench is not the issue. Knowing their track record as a fickle ally (at best) is the issue. Having the Fwench on one’s side is a near certain indicator you are headed in the wrong direction.

    Michael Barone delivers the slap in passing the Internationalists (bonus points for those who remember which failed state/empire had the Internationale as its national anthem) have so richly earned in Townhall:

    But there’s sometimes a downside, as well. Multilateral forces can be, in strict military terms, more trouble than they’re worth. For example, some of our NATO allies in Afghanistan had such strict rules of engagement that they were hardly capable of self-defense.

    More importantly, there is a cost to giving a veto to other countries. Critics of George W. Bush’s decision to take military action in Iraq never really explained why it was so important that we get the permission of France and Germany. Nor is it clear what moral force would have been added to the cause by the approval of Russia and China.

    Like the Fwench, beach does have the backhanded virtue of being a reliable contra-indicator.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    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.

  • Rodney Graves

    Mr. Beach missed the point (again).

    If the Fwench are on your side, you are headed in the wrong direction.

    Reliable contra-indicators such as Beach and the Fwench, while annoying, thus do indeed serve a purpose.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    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.

  • Rodney Graves

    Mr. Beach,

    Your initial position was

    against the will of most of NATO and the UN

    While Jim m concentrated on demonstrating that most of the members of NATO actually sided with us, I demolished your suggestion that Fwance is somehow central to NATO, when it is at best peripheral to NATO by Fwance’s choice.

    But Beach and the Fwench do remain reliable contra-indicators.

  • Rodney Graves

    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.

  • http://jimbeach.net Jim x

    Mr. graves, either wordpress is eating my comments or someone is editing them.

    I don’t understand why someone would be so frightened of my words to edit them, but if so that’s on them and not me.

    When I can be assured my words won’t be altered or just deleted, I’ll be happy to continue. Otherwise, au revoir.

  • Rodney Graves

    Mr. beach,

    Don’t go away mad…