A Tale Of Two Obamas

What a difference actually being in charge makes. It was so much easier for Barry Obama when he could sit back and pass judgement on the decisions of others and wow the world with his wisdom by telling people he would have done something differently. Remember when George Bush was in charge and Barry, a wet behind the ears state senator, was at a 2002 anti war rally:

President Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, said that using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed.

The “dumb war” Obama was criticizing was the planned invasion of Iraq and the murderous dictator was its leader, Saddam Hussein. Obama, speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002 said that while Saddam was a brutal tyrant, that was not enough to justify using military force to remove him from power. CNS News

Yep, the fact that Hussein was a brutal dictator was not enough to remove him. In the speech Obama admits Hussein had WMD, a claim that the left said Bush was lying about (which means that Obama is also a liar)

…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.” [emphasis mine]

Now that Barry is the leader he can’t sit back and vote present. He has sent our military to Libya to remove a brutal dictator, something he said was a “dumb war” in 2002.

His poll numbers are at their lowest ever and since a slip in the polls for the Tea Party is enough to compel liberals like Harry Reid to say America does not care about the Tea Party anymore I guess we can conclude that America does not care about Obama anymore. The same standards must apply even in liberalville.

Obama has even authorized covert operations in Libya. I guess when he decides to remove a dictator it is a noble thing in his mind.

I love when nose in the air elitist liberals have to eat their own words.

It is hard being a leader. Life is easy when you can second guess those in charge and wait for opinion polls before deciding what course of action you would have taken. This is not real leadership but allows the gifted politician to fool the morons among us.

Perhaps they should take back this guy’s Nobel Peace Prize.

If not they should award one to George W. Bush.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

15 Responses to “A Tale Of Two Obamas”

  1. Does Obama have any true convictions about anything?

  2. Adam says:

    You’re still trying to link Libya to Iraq. They’re two different situations with two different military responses. Note what Obama actually said as opposed to what CNS said about what he said:

    I don’t oppose all wars. … What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

    Obama believed Saddam could be contained without the use of a dumb, rash invasion that would last an indefinite amount of time and cost an indefinite number of American lives.

    I agree completely that running for president and being president are two drastically different things. I just don’t see why you harp on that when we’ve seen Obama break campaign promises several times now because when translated into executive decision they just don’t work like the campaign (like GITMO closing). You act like you’re telling Obama something we don’t already know.

    • Blake says:

      Adam- they are the same two things, in that, 1- the head of the DICTATORSHIP is a despot, in this case Quaddaffi- 2, we KNOW that he has WMDs- in this case mustard gas, as he has used it on his own people(sound familiar?), and he is rampantly killing civilians.
      Only this time, instead of going to Congress (as Bush did), this POS hides behind the skirts of NATO- which is ridiculous, since we ARE most of NATO, at least the fighting part. But this weak minded, weak-kneed Resident thinks they will provide political cover (sort of like voting “present”), when everyone can see the Emperor’s new clothes.

  3. victoria says:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/rebel-commander-in-libya-fought-against-u-s-in-afghanistan/?singlepage=true
    For once Adam, you are correct. You can’t link Libya with Iraq. In Iraq we had a president who was using our military to protect the US from terrorists and in Libya we have a president most probably using our military to help the terrorists. This maybe the stupidest move ever. Something is fishy when the UN oks it and when our president asks for their permission instead and then briefs congress later.

  4. Big Dog says:

    I think Adam is having trouble because he is using this linking Iraq and Libya as a rationalization of the acts undertaken by Obama. As for what CNS reported, contrary to what Adam said, they did report exactly that which was relayed by Adam.

    What Adam is also saying is that he and Obama get to decide what the “smart wars” and what the “dumb wars” are. If a Democrat uses military action it is a smart war and if not it is a dumb one.

    It matters not that BOTH actions involve removing a brutal dictator. Though one could make the argument that Hussein was much worse.

    I have this trouble because Obama criticized using force in Iraq but is out justifying his use of force in Libya under the same circumstances (which, despite Adam’s claim, they are).

    And Bush went for a long time working on UN resolutions prior to going in. Obama said we could contain Iraq but rushed to war in Libya without trying diplomacy or containment.

    And the major point is, Libya posed no threat to us, a major issue with the Obama position on Iraq…

    Adam is a liberal and ill justify everything Obama does. He has to. The libs went all in on a child with no experience and they need to defend that decision so they will ignore that which caused them to go apoplectic when Bush was in office.

    • Adam says:

      “What Adam is also saying is that he and Obama get to decide what the ‘smart wars’ and what the ‘dumb wars’ are.”

      I do. You’d get to too if you hadn’t backed a dumb war under Bush.

      “It matters not that BOTH actions involve removing a brutal dictator.”

      That’s like saying we can compare humans and watermelons because we’re both majority water. That’s about where the comparison stops. They’re not the same situation.

      “And Bush went for a long time working on UN resolutions prior to going in.”

      Yes, the quagmire in Iraq was totally OK, because Bush went into slow, right? All we’re expending so far is tax dollars and military spending is good stimulus.

      • Blake says:

        First, there were 17- count ’em 17 resolutions that Hussein (the dictator, not our Resident) ignored- in Quaddaffi’s case, there were fewer resolutions flouted.
        But this is a CIVIL WAR- one amongst his own people, and if we have a “compelling reason and moral need” to help the rebels in Libya, why not Syria? Sudan? Yemen? Lebanon?
        Why did we NOT help the Iranians when they tried to overthrow the Mullahs and Ahmadenijad, or however you spell turd in Iranian?
        How can Obama justify Libya and not others?
        Simple- it is nothing more than a distraction- has to be, because morality cannot be picky.

  5. Big Dog says:

    I don’t know how much more dense you can be. It is not about advice or about whether we agree with what was done. It is about you backing Obama doing what he was absolutely opposed to when he was not in charge. It is about you supporting something that you opposed when it was Bush doing it. It is about the complete reversal.

    YOU are the one who changed positions. I know it is tough for you but your guy said one thing and did a completely different one.

    So let’s get more “leadership” opinion from folks who change their minds depending on when the election is.

    But tell me Adam, what threat does Libya pose to the US, a key to Obama’s opposition…

    • Adam says:

      How should I know what threat they pose? Why do you keep suggesting I support Obama’s actions? Pointing out your flawed logic is not a defense of Obama’s military actions. I still don’t support it.

  6. victoria says:

    This is interesting–
    Per Ann Coulter on TownHall: “Soon after President Bush’s 9/11 speech vowing to go to war not only with terrorists, but those who supported them, Gadhafi accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and paid the victims’ families $8 million apiece.

    After Bush invaded Iraq, Gadhafi suspended Libya’s nuclear and chemical weapons program, inviting international inspectors to verify that the programs had been halted.

    A few years after that, Gadhafi paid millions of dollars to the victims of other Libyan-sponsored terrorist attacks from the ’80s. In return, President Bush granted Libya immunity from terror-related lawsuits.

    Only Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly thinks Obama is intervening in Libya to avenge the Lockerbie bombing.

    However far off the mark Gadhafi is from being the Libyan George Washington, he poses no threat to the U.S. — whereas the rebels we are supporting might.”