Obama and Libya: U.N., Congress and George W. Bush

You remember George W. Bush? he went to the U.N. about Saddam Hussein--a dictator at least as bad as Gadhafi (although, admittedly, at this level of evil it hardly matters who is worse). Saddam Hussein was certainly a greater threat generally in the region, and to the United states (although Gadhafi MAY have instigated more direct terror attacks against Americans directly).

The point is that President Bush went to the U.N. and got a resolutioin. But, unlike President Obama, President Bush did not stop there. He then went BACK to Congress and sought a direct aughorization from Congress to go to war. That is why Democrats insisted that President Bush had "misled" them, because they voted FOR war in Iraq (much more definitely than the U.N. has voted for the present operatioin in Libya--the U.N. resolutoion being a case study in VAGUENESS). Obama has lied about the operation in Libya more than President Bush ever lied about weapons of mass destruction (which the U.,N. and everyone else thought Saddam had). But Obama has avoided the entire problem of lying to Congress--or being accused of "miseleading" Congress--by simply NOT ASKING FOR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION. Obama, of course, was at the forefront of attacking this kind of "igh handed" action by a President to take us to war (that is, in Iraq, even though Bush seemingly went the extra mile to get "authority" for the Iraq War). Obama, as usual, is being as NON-TRANSPARENT as he can p0ssibly be--"transparency" being an Orwellian Big Lie by Obama on many fronts.

Yes, leftist Democrats, including the mainstream media, remain the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Yes, I know that SOME leftists (e.g. Michael Moore and Ralph Nader) are atttacking Obama on Libya. For the mainstream media, and most leftists, however, it is a matter of finding a way to defend Obama--a way to say Obama is better than Bush (who also put together a "coalition" to enforce U.N. resolutions agaisnt a murderous madman, except that Bush at least went to Congress. It was ONLY because Bush made such a case against Saddam Hussein in the U.N> AND in Congress that the "issue" of Bush misleading" people even comes up. As stated, Obama avoided this by simply NOT making the case for any specific policy in any specific detail. Transparency!!!!!????

The worst thing about what Obama has done is represented by part of the "defense" put forward by his political supporters in the mainstream media (where a CNN host, by the way, even asked a DEMOCRAT whether everyone should not simply support the President in this kind of action, whatever your private views--CNN expecially being composed of the worst hypocrites who ever have walked the Earth, ignoring that Obama, Reid, Democrats and the mainstream media did not even raise that questioin as to the Iraq War) as follows: "At least Obama has EMPHSIZEWD a "multinational" approach to problems, where we are following the lead of the rest of the world instead of arrogantlly asserting that we know what is best."

Translatioin (and this is BAD): Obama does not want to LEAD (see previous article), and doees not want the U.S. to assert a leadership role in the world Worse, Obama wants to cede decisions on when to use the U.S. military to the U.N., NATO, and almost anyone else. Worse still, if the "Arab League", or almost anyone else, opoposes military action on our part in any porrioon of the world in which they assert an "interest", then we should pretty much comply with their wishes.

In other words, the mainstream media is aplauding (sort of, as even they have to acknowledge the confusing messages Obama is sending) the idea that the WORLD should have more say in the use of our military than our own Congress (especially, of course, if Congress has a lot of those evil Repubicans in it).

This is all terrible stuff, but it is what happens when we have a coward and a liar as President (see the previous article). Obama has no coherent policies or principles on using our military, except a reliance on FEELLING (either his own or what he thinks other people are feeling) and WORDS (here definitely his own, but where the owrds are jsut meant to appeal to the emotions and avoid responsibility, rather than truly lead).

Our president is a piece of work. Who could possibly trust him? Only our enemies, who may think they can trust him to be WEAK. That perception is how really bad things happen.

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above has neither been proofread nor spell checked (eyesight).