Obama And Libya: Liberals Show The Hypocrisy That Defines Them

Liberals are hypocrites.  Obama is a hypocrite.  Hypocrisy is the quintessential defining essence of liberalism.

Don’t like that claim?  Tough.  It’s the truth.

Where’s all the criticism for Obama that Democrats, liberals and the unhinged leftwing media constantly threw at George Bush???

Here’s a good brief collection of ways the left demonized Bush over Iraq that are very conveniently being forgotten by the left and by the press which are the left’s useful idiots:

John Hawkins
7 Questions For Liberals About Obama’s Libyan War

It seems like it was just yesterday when we had an “imperialist warmonger” in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised “hope” and “change” instead. It’s funny how that worked out, isn’t it? We still have troops in Iraq, we’ve escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we’re bombing everything that moves in Libya. Yet, the same liberals who were protesting in the streets and calling George Bush a war criminal have mostly been meek and quiet about the fact that the President they supported has been following in George Bush’s footsteps.

So, the obvious question is, “Did you lefties believe ANY of the crap you were spewing about the war on terrorism before Obama got into office?” If so, maybe you could answer a few questions prompted by the things liberals were saying during the Bush years.

1) Isn’t this a rush to war? There were 17 UN resolutions regarding Iraq, Bush talked about going to war for a full year before we actually invaded, and he received Congressional approval first. After all that, liberals STILL shouted that it was a “rush to war.” Meanwhile, Obama decided to bomb Libya in between making his Final Four picks and planning out a vacation to Brazil, probably because Hillary yelled at him. How about applying the same standards to Obama that you applied to Bush?

2) Is Obama invading Libya because Gaddafi insulted him? Liberals claimed George Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate his father. Using that same line of thinking, could the notoriously thin-skinned Obama be bombing Libya because he’s still angry that Gaddafi once said this about him?

We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites. This will be a tragedy. We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him because if he sticks to this inferiority complex he will have a worse foreign policy than the whites had in the past.

Obama doesn’t have much use for anyone who criticizes him. Even his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright learned all about what the underside of a bus looks like after he dared to criticize Obama. Is that Obama’s real motivation? Hmmmmmmm, liberals?

3) Is this a war for oil? What was it liberals kept saying over and over about Iraq? Oh yeah, it was “No blood for oil!” What was the rationale for claiming the war in Iraq was about oil? Iraq had oil; we were going to war there; so obviously it just MUST be about oil. That was it. So, Libya has oil and unlike Hussein, Gaddafi has been cooperative of late; so there’s no compelling reason for America to invade….except perhaps, to safeguard all that Texas T. flowing beneath the sand. So, when do we have liberals in the streets shouting “No blood for oil?”

4) Where are the massive protests? Can’t you just see it? The Communist Party, Code Pink, the black bloc, and the free Mumia wackjobs all joining together with the Tea Party to protest Obama. Wouldn’t that be fun? I mean personally, I’ve been waiting for years to wear a “No Blood For Oil” sign while I carry around a giant puppet head. Someone call the commies and union members who organize all these hippie shindigs for the Left and let’s do this thing!

5) Shouldn’t we have tried to talk it out with Gaddafi instead? I thought that the Muslim world loves and respects America since Barack Obama became President? So, why not try to talk it out with Gaddafi? Perhaps Obama should have been humble, realized he didn’t have all the answers, and then he could have had a conversation with Gaddafi instead of threatening him? Maybe he should have considered the possibility that Libya’s culture is a little different than ours. Had he perhaps met with Gaddafi and bowed to him to show his respect, this could have probably been worked out without violence. Oh, why, why must we be so arrogant and so ignorant of other nations’ rich cultural traditions, which in Libya apparently consist of murdering everyone who opposes you?

6) Aren’t we just starting a cycle of violence by bombing Libya? You know what they say, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!” We drop bombs on them, they get angry, and next thing you know, they turn into terrorists to get us back! That was what we heard from the Left over and over during the Bush years, wasn’t it? That we were creating terrorists?

That’s why liberals like Richard Gere suggested brilliant strategies like this to deal with Al-Qaeda:

In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who’s suffering. (But we must also think about) the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It’s all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see (the terrorists) as a relative who’s dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There’s nothing better.

Maybe instead of bombing Libya, Obama needs to engage in a little more love and compassion by hugging Gaddafi into submission!

7) Isn’t Barack Obama a chickenhawk? Barack Obama has never served in the military; yet he just decided to engage in a “war of choice” in Libya. Even if you chalk up Iraq and Afghanistan to Obama cleaning up after Bush, this one is all on him. If American soliders die, it’s because Obama chose to put them in harm’s way. If Libyan civilians are killed by American weapons, it’s because Barack Obama gave the order to attack. So, can we all agree that Barack Obama is a squawking, yellow bellied chickenhawk?

I had a slightly different project last week in an article I titled, “Obama Adds Stupid And Hypocritical To Weak In His Libya No-Fly Policy.”  In that, I added factoids, such as how Obama went from demonizing the war in Iraq to claiming credit for it; how Obama’s people claimed his wonderful Cairo speech was responsible for the desire for freedom, when really it was his terrible economic policies that have undermined economies throughout the world; how Obama attacked Bush for not having enough troops in Afghanistan and subsequently “air-raiding villages and killing civilians” to refusing to have any troops at all while we do nothing BUT air-raiding villages in Libya.  That sort of thing.

But it turns out there is so much hypocrisy oozing out of Obama like toxic contaminents that it is hard to contain them all in any one article.  There’s what Obama said when he claimed Bush didn’t have the right to go to war in Iraq –

“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,” Obama responded.

– with what the hypocrite is doing RIGHT NOW.

Obama literally ought to be impeached by his own standard.

Then there’s the fact that Obama is an abject LIAR about what he is saying about Bush:

[T]he President declared: “In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden.”

First of all, there’s this:

On Saturday, President Obama while visiting Brazil launched a United Nations war without obtaining Congressional approval. We all must remember how the left crucified President George W. Bush over a nine-month debate concerning war with Iraq. This debate included multiple UN Resolutions and a Multi-National Force composed of dozens of nations. Many refer to this time of debate as a “rush to war.” Yesterday however, President Obama approved the launch of Tomahawk missiles effectively engaging us in a Libyan civil war. This decision came with no debate in Congress and one UN Resolution that was only voted on 48 hours before.

Then there is this fact:

As the folks at Fox quickly pointed out, Bush actually had twice as many international allies for the invasion of Iraq as Obama has put together for his adventure in Libya.  They even put together a list.

Then add to that insult the fact that Obama never bothered to get any kind of approval from Congress, whereas Bush had Congress’ approval for both Afghanistan AND Iraq.  In Iraq, the war liberals always demonize him over, Congress granted Bush the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq” in October 2002.

Not only did Obama not have any such authority, but he literally started his unlateral war in Libya while he was on vacation in Brazil!!!

Dennis Kucinich is about the only Democrat who actually has the integrity to demand Obama answer for his impeachable offense which his fellow Democrats deceitfully and falsely tried to claim that Bush had committed.

Where are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in demanding that chicken hawk war criminal Obama be impeached for abandoning the Constitution?

Iraq was – and damn, IT CONTINUES TO BE – depicted by the left as some kind of massive failure (except when it benefits them to falsely take credit for it).  But Saddam Hussein’s head is hanging on Bush’s wall.  And what about Muammar Gaddafi’s head?

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has admitted that a stalemate could allow Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to remain in power despite facing intenational military action gainst his forces.He said that the outcome of military action from the air was “very uncertain” and made it clear that the US did not see the goal of Operation Odyssey Dawn as removing the Libyan leader from power, The Telegraph reports.

If Gaddafi stays in Libya, it will be a massive failure.  And Gaddafi is going to stay in power.

Even the New York Times acknowledges that this will be a massive failure:

If Colonel Qaddafi manages to remain in power, that will leave the United States and the United Nations-backed mission looking like a failure, foreign policy experts from all sides of the political spectrum said. “Barack Obama told Qaddafi to go; if Qaddafi doesn’t go, America will look diminished in the eyes of the world,” said Steven Clemons, senior fellow at the New American Foundation.

Stephen J. Hadley, a former national security adviser to President George W. Bush and an architect of the 2003 Iraq invasion, said at a forum in San Francisco on Saturday that he feared the limited approach “could set us up for failure.”

“I don’t quite see what is behind the strategy in Libya,” Mr. Hadley said, speaking while a small clutch of protesters — mostly yelling chants about Iraq — were on the streets below. “We are now in a situation where we have a mismatch of what the president said we want to do as a nation, what the U.N. Security Council authorizes, and what we are actually ready to commit in resources.”

As an example of still more failure, Obama’s coalition is falling apart in front of the world while Obama continues to party in South America.

The fact of the matter is that I pointed out two weeks ago that Libyans were missing George Bush.  Why?  Because Obama is a failure, and Bush was a guy who got things done, that’s why.

I also pointed out nearly a week ago what the people who knew what they were talking about were saying DAYS before Obama finally bothered to do too little and too late to change the situation:

Obama pontificated, made some bold statements, and then did nothing.  Now a no-fly zone would probably come to late.

Liberals and Democrats are hypocrites.  They have been hypocrites for my entire lifetime.

But this display of sheer, galling incompetence and stupidity is new, even for them.