Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Nobel Peace Prize Winner Enters Third War

 

The American Tomahawks have been launched.  Congressional approval of the action against Libya is as easy to find as hen’s teeth.  Mick Jagger is writing a song about the President called “sweet neo-con” (oh wait, only Republicans can be neo-cons).

Good thing a Peace Prize winner is in charge.

Who can forget his beautiful words on limiting presidential war powers that gave us such hope for change to finally come to the way America waged war, like this:

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.  —December 20, 2007

Or this:

Now let me be clear: 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. The world, and the Iraqi people would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. –March 27, 2007

Or this:

I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place. Six years ago, I opposed this war because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, & whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn’t caught bin Laden. –Septmeber 26, 2008

Or this gem about priorities:

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war….What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income. –October 2, 2002

Oh and here is a glimpse into the money you and I will be expected to spend later on:

We have to have humanitarian aid now. We also have two-and-a-half million displaced people inside of Iraq and several million more outside of Iraq. We should be ramping up assistance to them right now. But I always reserve the right, in conjunction with a broader international effort, to prevent genocide or any wholesale slaughter than might happen inside of Iraq or anyplace else. –February 11, 2008

Barack Obama – He’s George Bush with a Peace Prize.

There are 11 comments.

  1. Good Berean Inactive

    It’s all Hillary, don’t you know? Barack is in Rio with the wife and kids.

    • #1
    • March 20, 2011, at 3:02 AM PST
    • Like
  2. Good Berean Inactive

    Second double post…I must be slipping…

    • #2
    • March 20, 2011, at 3:04 AM PST
    • Like
  3. Johannes Allert Inactive

    “Barack Obama – He’s George Bush with a Peace Prize.”

    And an Ipod loaded with hits…

    • #3
    • March 20, 2011, at 3:23 AM PST
    • Like
  4. Mel Foil Inactive

    Why do you suppose that nations like Iran want nuclear weapons? Because if you’re part of the nuclear club, like North Korea, nobody establishes no-fly-zones over your territory, no matter how much genocide you’re involved in. They don’t mess with you. At least they don’t do it without lots of public debate at home first. Every time the West takes military action like this, we’re just showing third world nations, again, why they need bigger badder weapons.

    • #4
    • March 20, 2011, at 3:28 AM PST
    • Like
  5. Johannes Allert Inactive

    The reports state Tomahawk missles were lanched from the USS Barry (DDG 52), now there’s irony for you. In fact the ship’s motto is “Strength & Diversity” …you can’t make this stuff up.

    http://www.barry.navy.mil/default.aspx

    • #5
    • March 20, 2011, at 3:52 AM PST
    • Like
  6. Quixotic Inactive

    I’d like to non-ironically and non-sarcastically ponder why President Obama didn’t seek Congregational approval before joining a war. It would have been consistent with his stated beliefs, it would have benefited him politically, and he would have got it.

    My only guess is that he really does have contempt for the people and thus for the democratic process, as illustrated by his many attempts to do end-runs around Congress. E.g., a multitude of “czars” who don’t require Senate approval, the EPA regulating greenhouse gases against Congressional policy, placing Elizabeth Warren to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as “special advisor,” because the Senate would not appoint her as head of that agency.

    • #6
    • March 20, 2011, at 5:39 AM PST
    • Like
  7. Tommy De Seno Contributor
    Tommy De Seno Post author
    Matthew Shaffer: Couldn’t you say that, in a funny way, Obama’s presidency is a vindication of Bush’s policies? Doesn’t the fact that even a man of Obama’s ideals, once transplanted into a position of national responsibility, saw the need to extend Bush’s national security policies prove that the world is uglier and more difficult to keep safe than Bush’s critics would have admitted?

    The other obvious takeaway is that critics who called Bush a fascist, or called for impeachment and citizens’ arrests, and aren’t doing so for Obama now, are showing their hypocrisy. Not that anyone should pretend to be surprised to find hypocrisy in politics… · Mar 20 at 12:41pm

    Exactly. I’ve long maintained Obama is Bush on Steroids. Bigger bailout, bigger deficit and now more war.

    Remember when the MSM used to cover Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink when they could muster a full dozen people for a protest?

    Where’s either of them now?

    • #7
    • March 21, 2011, at 7:56 AM PST
    • Like
  8. Franco Member

    This is a profound setback for the left.

    I would rather not use Obama’s actions to repair Bush’s reputation with the left. I’d rather use Bush’s reputation with the left to tear down Obama, if that makes any sense.

    Not that anyone here is doing this overtly but I’m sure I’ll see it all over from certain Republicans.

    I’m not interested in rehashing all that stuff. We made all those arguments already. They (basically) won. They own the narrative. They are stuck with it. Don’t let them out by using this to get some empty consesions about Bush after all the damage was done.

    • #8
    • March 21, 2011, at 8:46 AM PST
    • Like
  9. Scrivener Inactive

    Couldn’t you say that, in a funny way, Obama’s presidency is a vindication of Bush’s policies? Doesn’t the fact that even a man of Obama’s ideals, once transplanted into a position of national responsibility, saw the need to extend Bush’s national security policies prove that the world is uglier and more difficult to keep safe than Bush’s critics would have admitted?

    The other obvious takeaway is that critics who called Bush a fascist, or called for impeachment and citizens’ arrests, and aren’t doing so for Obama now, are showing their hypocrisy. Not that anyone should pretend to be surprised to find hypocrisy in politics…

    • #9
    • March 21, 2011, at 12:41 PM PST
    • Like