Barack Obama then vs now: Iraq vs Libya
During his speech on the Libyan war Barack Obama attempted to justify involving the United States in the civil war of another country by stating the following:
Qaddafi declared he would show ‘no mercy’ to his own people,” said President Obama. “He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day.
“Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city,” Obama said. “We knew that if we waited, if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.”
“But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act,” said Obama. “That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks
He made the case before the American people that because Qaddafi was willing to slaughter his own people that the United States was obligated to intervene. Because he did not seek the prior approval of the Congress he was seeking to prove to the American people that the vital interests of the United States were at stake, but did you notice that little qualifier in his last statement? He could not make the argument that this incursion was based on the fact that America had a vested interest in starting another war in the Middle East so he fell back on a humanitarian platform when he stated that America’s “values” were at stake.
Interests vs values; there is a huge difference between the two and when he couldn’t justify the war using American interests as a means to commit American firepower he fell back on defending the values of the United States. That one little word changes the whole meaning of the mission while attempting to make is sound as if nothing has changed. That one little word turned this from a mission in which the United States had a vested interest in the Libyan civil war to an issue of human rights around the globe.
That’s interesting to say the least because we have been told over the last decade or so that America cannot and should not try to spread her beliefs across the globe. We are not the policemen of the world; how many times have you heard that argument? Yet here we have Barack Obama doing exactly what the left has been claiming we do not have the right to do. Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the words of Barack Obama himself when he spoke out against the Iraq war in 2002:
Now, let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein,” said Obama in his speech. “He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. 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.”
“… After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again,” said Obama. “I don’t oppose all wars. … 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 cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne
The Barack Obama of 2011 differs significantly from the Barack Obama of 2002.
In 2002 Saddam Hussein was butchering his people and had ignored countless UN resolutions. President Bush made the case for over one year why the United States should involve herself in Iraq. In 2011 Qaddafi was slaughtering his own people and had ignored one UN resolution, while Barack Obama waited a few weeks and never made the case to the American people before he attacked Libya.
Yet according to Barack Obama when the United States invaded Iraq it was a “dumb war” and a “rash war” in which the United States was trying to push an “ideological agenda” (values) on the people. It didn’t matter that President Bush waited a year and it didn’t matter that America’s values were being attacked; There was no “conscience of the world” that would be stained if Saddam Hussein was allowed to stay in power and murder his own people.
While on the other hand when the United States attacked Libya it was not a “rash war” or a “dumb war” because America’s values (ideological agenda) were under assault, even if Libya posed no immediate threat to the United States and as such there was no American interests at stake. In this case–at least according to the Barack Obama of 2011–it was important that the United States help to make sure the “conscience of the world” remain unstained.
Just in case this duplicity isn’t enough for you: I mentioned above the fact that Libya posed no immediate threat to the security of the United States; here is what the Barack Obama of 2002 had to say about Iraq and the lack of an immediate threat to the United States:
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, 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
In 2002 Barack Obama felt that because Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States that he should simply be tolerated through containment until he faded away into the “dustbin of history” and apparently it didn’t matter how many of his own people he killed before he reached that dustbin. Yet the Barack Obama of 2011 did not feel the same about the Libyan dictator who posed no immediate threat to America; in this case he must not be simply contained until he faded away into the “dustbin of history” because too many innocent lives would be lost.
Is Barack Obama so arrogant that he does not believe the American people can see through this ruse? Or is he simply so narcissistic that he believes the American people will simply follow along with him no matter how contradictory his positions may become without questioning him? Or was he simply naive in 2002 and speaking on an issue of which he really knew nothing about in order to gain political points?
To all of those that voted for Barack Obama I ask you this: Do you feel as if you were duped?
America's Watchtower 
Great post Steve!
I’m always amazed how the contradictions Obama is repeatedly involved are rarely if ever exposed.
Too bad someone didn’t have a split screen when he starts saying these things so his past comments can be displayed next to them!
LikeLike
Thank you! It is amazing to me that these contradictions are not exposed by the MSM but then I remember that they are simply Barack Obama’s propaganda arm and it all makes sense. The MSM is journalistically bankrupt and corrupt but I would love to see them do a split screen just once.
LikeLike
Hm . . . there are other parallels – for example, Presdient Bush 41 encouraged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein, and then he, we, and the world watched as he gassed them.
Then when his son decided to invade Iraq using the pretext of finding those WMD, they were never found, and so GWB and the right wing fell back on justifying the invasion because Saddam Hussein was such a bad guy.
Notwithstanding all that, I’m told daily in the business reports that the rising price of gasoline is due entirely to the rising price of oil, which itself is due to the unstable situation in Libya.
I’m also advised that these rising gasoline prices could put a serious crimp in our recovery from the recession we’re trying to get out of.
Why the President didn’t mention those facts I don’t know, but it’s clear to me that stability in Libya is of great concern to the United States and affects our national security significantly – unless slipping back into recession isn’t a matter of national security.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Yes, there’s definitely some revisionist history regarding the invasion of Iraq. We burned some bridges & ignored some very reliable intelligence (French were ridiculed), as our intel agencies told the boss what he wanted to hear. Just a few days ago I heard a commentator justifying W’s action with respect to Iraq because Saddam was mistreating his people. We should have finished in Afghanistan – I think the world knew at that point we were not to be trifled with. Unfortunately, going into Iraq galvanized a lot of anti-US sentiment.
Libya supplies a relatively small amount of the world’s oil. Italy, China, France, Germany and Spain are the biggest importers of Libyan oil. The US’ daily importation is about 0.25% of our consumption (51k barrels in our 20M barrels per day). The rising gas prices mean either: A. The world’s supply is so tight that even a small disruption drives prices quickly, or B. The oil companies and speculative traders are opportunistic and seize upon any excuse to drive prices & profits… nah, they’d never do that!
LikeLike
You don’t think the weaking dollar as a result of QE II has anything to do with higer oil prices?
LikeLike
I do not have an argument against the two points you made–in fact I agree. Once the WMDs were not found there is no doubt that the reasoning behind the invasion changed from the WMD argument to the humanitarian argument, but I do not see how that parallels the conflicting positions of Barack Obama other than the fact that you are trying to make a counterpoint which really isn’t relevant in this case.
LikeLike
Probably not such a clear (or relevant) post on my part. Just some thoughts riding on TGY’s coat tails. There is no doubt that Obama has been hypocritical, and I’ve made my case (in another of your posts) that he didn’t follow the proper process. Today’s revelation regarding the President’s order (signing a “finding”) 2 or 3 weeks ago further convinces me that he could have taken some time to build a consensus with Congress. As with Iraq, I think we will see history repeat itself going forward as actions will be explained with details that smack of revisionism – especially with an election looming.
QEII and the weakening dollar have added to rising fuels prices for an extended time, but there has been a recent spike coincident with events in Libya. Over the last week and half the dollar index has risen from 75.401 to 76.249 (still a long way from its 88.405 in early June ’10).
LikeLike
I apologize Mark for not being clear; my comment was supposed to be directed at TGY as well, not you.
LikeLike
We still don’t know who these “rebels” are. They turned out to be the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. I for one don’t want one drop of American blood spilled for that crowd.
LikeLike
Absolutely. Intentions, however noble, can get turned around in an ugly way in that part of the world. Remember Somalia?
LikeLike
And it sounds like there is some al Qaeda fighters there as well, this is not a good situation.
LikeLike
As with Iraq, I think we will see history repeat itself going forward as actions will be explained with details that smack of revisionism – especially with an election looming.
LikeLike
Yet another comparison with Iraq exists and it should be a warning for the countries involved in the military operation to avoid the same mistakes from the past. In the 1990s after the Gulf war the responsibilities were put in the hands of the Iraqi people and as a consequence Saddam Hussein regained his power in the country. Once the conflict in Libya is over the people will want to make their own decisions but to leave the country without any foreign military presence would be a huge mistake.
LikeLike