Inconvenient comparison: Obama’s war and Bush’s war
It’s different this time!
When it comes to the (former?) War on Terror, the media has already been caught furiously spinning legitimate news stories in order to set Obama apart from his predecessor.
While the revisionism of the New York Times was remarkable, Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast deserves an honorable mention:
Obama’s Iraq Is Not Bush’s Iraq
Last week, a Politico reporter phoned me to ascertain my thoughts on the new war. Among the questions: Was there concern among liberals that Barack Obama was in some sense now becoming George Bush, and did I see similarities between the current war and Bush’s Iraq war that, come on, be honest, made me squirm in my seat ever so slightly? My answer ended up on the cutting-room floor, as many answers given to reporters do.
But since I’m fortunate enough to have a column, I’d like to broadcast it now, because the answer is a reverberating no. In fact it’s hard for me to imagine how the differences between the two actions could be starker. This is not to say that they might not end up in the same place—creating more problems than they solve. But in moral terms, this war is nothing like that war, and if this war doesn’t end up like Bush’s and somehow actually solves more problems than it creates, that will happen precisely because of the moral differences.
When will Obama and his supporters just admit that they were wrong about Bush?
I’ll give the final word to Iowahawk…
You gotta admit Obama is much more articulate in delivering a Bush speech than Bush was.
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) September 24, 2014
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Mikey Tomasky is so stupid, he flunked the audition for “The View”.
Which is REALLY stupid…
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/the-profound-stupidity-of-liberalism-on-display.php
The irony isn’t that the liberals do what the conservatives do when confronted with similar circumstances (only worse). The irony is that, the next time we do it, they will be imbued with righteous indignation with no sense of hypocrisy.
MSM = MML (Mutual Masturbation League)
Wow. I feel dumber for having read that tripe. Obama’s ME war is good and just and moral because it was not based on a lie, like Bush’s ME war. Really Tomasky? Bush’s “lie” about WMD was supported at the time by a whole lot of congessional Democrats who had access to the classified materials. Were people like Hillary Clinton, who were also assuring Americans that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous and substantial threat, “liars” as well?
And Obama’s much-smaller coalition is more legitimate than Bush’s 40-state coalition because “it’s not built around a goal that is in the interest only of the United States.” Unlike Hussein’s Iraq, ISIS is a threat to the entire ME region. LOL. Because Saddam Hussein was never a threat to any of his neighbors in the region, right Mikey? Kuwait actually wanted to be invaded; Iran also wanted to spend years fighting Iraq. Every ME country wished that they could have as stable and friendly and peace-loving a neighbor as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq!
But I particularly like the part about how Bush’s Iraq war was a “dubious hegemonic enterprise” of the kind that Obama would never engage in. No, the worldly and noble Obama would never try to impose western values on ME countries. Tomasky says this right after expressing his hope that Obama’s war will cause those backwards ME countries to become more open, adopt better economic policies, allow more free speech, and occasionally have elections that aren’t clearly rigged in favor of the ruling potentates. IOW, Tomasky hopes they’ll become more like the U.S. (or the post-war Iraq that Bush tried to build) — nothing hegemonic about that, right Mikey?
I don’t know what is more disturbing about this ludicrous piece. The fact that Tomasky is such a blithering idiot, or the fact that he seems completely oblivious to his own idiocy, and actually thinks he is making a persuasive case for Obama’s stumbling, feckless, and blatantly hypocritical ineptitude in the ME.
Bush’s “lie” about Iraq’s WMD sure was believed by a lot of prominent Democrats . . . in the Bill Clinton administration.
These Democrats also claimed that Saddam Hussein was a serious threat, both to the ME region, and to the U.S.
What a bunch of LIARS these folks are, right Tomasky?:
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy(D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
– Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Last night I read the legal “logic”. It goes like this: ISIS, which didn’t exist in 2001, started as Al Qaeda in Iraq. Several name changes and a falling out with Bin Laden “should not” disqualify it for military attack under the 2001 Authorization of Military Force passed just after 9/11. In other words, a group need not be part of Al Qaeda; it merely needs to have once been part of Al Qaeda. Mutual renunciation does not disqualify it from attack.
When I pointed out in a comment under the article that this was very Bushian, I was chewed out as a liberal and that “you people” (i.e. me) just can’t accept that Obama’s being held to a different standard. I can’t speak for anyone else in this instance, but I find the legal “logic” to simply be spectacularly hypocritical. That doesn’t mean it lacks force of law. It’s just extremely reliant on the previous administration’s work product.
The main differences between these wars is that Saddan+Al Qaeda was a lot tougher fight than ISIS will be. Bush won the war in Iraq and Tyrant Obama the Liar lost it. Tyrant Obama the Liar is choosing to lose the war against ISIL by refusing to follow his generals recommendations. While Bush chose to win and followed their recommendations.
Tyrant Obama the Liar’s only concern is his poll numbers which where dropping because he ignored ISIL and failed to get a status of forces agreement. Now he has to pretend to care about defeating ISIL. So his “war” has no chance of success, but gives the appearance of doing something.