3 Mar

Iraq Deja Vu [Reader Post]

                                       

Gaddafi and his “son”

On a phone call to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on February 26 Barack Obama said that Moammar Gaddafi had to leave power in Libya.

“The president stated that when a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now,” the White House said.

Does this sound familiar?

Hillary Clinton said Gaddafi must leave- now.

Speaking at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council in Geneva, Secretary Clinton said the Iraqi Libyan leader’s violence against his own people meant that he must depart his office “now, without further violence or delay.” And the US is keeping “all options on the table,” she added, to protect Iraq’s Libya’s civilian population and to encourage a transition to a legitimate government.

I know I’ve heard this somewhere….

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron said a leader killing his own people was unacceptable:

David Cameron, the British prime minister, has said the international community cannot let Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi “murder” his own people, as he justified considerations for a no-fly zone over the riot-torn country.

And the US Senate?

The Senate weighed in on the issue later Tuesday, unanimously passing a non-binding resolution calling on the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Iraq Libya. The resolution condemned the “gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya” and demanded that Saddam Gadhafi leave office.

Uh, that would be Democrats in the Senate calling for the ouster of the leader of a Middle Eastern country. I having this feeling of deja vu…..

Way back in 1998 Tom Daschle shepherded a bill know as the “Iraq Liberation Act” through the Senate. It’s purpose was expressly clear:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

Eventually 23 writs were issued against Saddam. One of them was of particular note for today.

his repression of, and use of weapons of mass destruction against, his own people;

As we all know, Democrats cannot help but talk out of both sides of their mouths. While the Iraq Liberation Act specifically called for regime change in Iraq, then Secretary of Defense William Cohen mumbled something else:

But Defense Secretary William Cohen, in an interview with CNNs Judy Woodruff, said the goal of any military strike would be to degrade Husseins capability of producing weapons of mass destruction.

It is not our goal to remove Saddam Hussein, Cohen said.

Obama has now demanded that both Mubarak and Gaddafi leave their countries, just as another American President once did.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.

The parallels are eerie.

Libya (and Egypt, actually) presents an interesting predicament for Obama and his Democrats. They can make all the demands they want, but it appears that Gaddafi has no intention of leaving. What are they to do now that he’s refused?

Leaving aside the humanitarian aspect, what legal right do we have to take any action in Libya? Gaddafi’s actions do not constitute a genocide. His actions are the suppression of a revolt, of an insurrection against an established government.

One has to ask- were a well-armed militia of tens thousands of fed-up Americans to organize via a social network and decide that the time had come to remove Barack Obama for his efforts to destroy this country with debt and his installation of an Attorney General who represents only “his people”, would the US military use its weapons to stop them? Would a US President order the killing of Americans? Would an armed US insurrection find sympathy around the world? Could such an insurrection expect Britain or Canada to provide a “no-fly” zone over Washington DC? Might Vladimir Putin demand that Obama leave the country?

This ignores the painful hypocrisy of Democrats then and now. It would serve Obama and his Democrats what they’ve earned for Republicans to voice their support for any actions he takes and then disavow everything he does come the next election and pound him for it.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Deception and Lies, Foreign Policy, Global Regions, Law, Liberal Idiots, Middle East, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Politics, POWER GRAB!, The Iraqi War, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Thursday, March 3rd, 2011 at 5:00 am
| 567 views

24 Responses to Iraq Deja Vu [Reader Post]

  1. Aleric says: 1

    Democrats believe that history is simply something that happened yesterday and it doesnt affect them in the slightest. Remember these are people who like to make big statements and then sit back and do nothing, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama. If they hold true they will make demands, maybe launch a missle or two and if it goes their way they will take credit, against them they will blame others.

    ReplyReply
  2. joetote says: 2

    Ooh! The United States has decided a dictator has to leave! Everyone has to be shaking in their boots now1 NOT! Thanks to this out of touch dodo in the White house and his lackeys in this administration, the world has lost any respect it ever had for us. They pay us lip service then laugh. You hit it on the head Dr. John. This is dejavu, but in this case we’re ten times the laughing stock of the world we were then.

    ReplyReply
  3. Greta says: 3

    Democrats warn and talk a lot. One reason this turmoil is going on is that the world senses that with Barry, the country is all talk and will do nothing significant. When America has appeared weak as with Jimmy Carter, you have the evil folks who see an opportunity without consequence. This would not have happend with W. Bush in office and the result of this turmoil will be higher prices for the US for oil and a further drain on our economy, but also to the very real potential of other Islamist states who support terror. For 30 years we had all our presidents hosting Mubarak for his leadership in maintaining peace and in his fight against radical Islamist. Remember he jailed the second in command to Osama bin Laden until he was forced to let him out by the courts. Now we even have President of Yemen, who supported us in the war on terror making statements against America. so much for the world loving America with apology tour Barry as President.

    ReplyReply
  4. Nan G says: 4

    I remember John Kerry, when he was running for president, saying that he met lots of world leaders at fine restaurants on the East coast.
    He thought most foreign relations issues could be solved in the kitchens and hallways of eateries!
    Seems Obama thinks words are the answer as well.
    So, how’s that working out for him?

    A main problem with the Left is it acts like its own Revisionist history is true.
    No.
    Just because you cut out from history books the culmination of studying REAL history that led to Theodore Roosevelt saying, ”Speak Softly But Carry a Big Stick,” does not change the reality on the ground, known to be true over centuries of human governance, that talk needs to be backed up with power.

    ReplyReply
  5. FAITH7 says: 5

    @Greta:

    Greta #3 – You nailed it with this line:
    so much for the world loving America with an apology tour from Barry as President.

    The ‘current’ events, flash backed with past events 1998-2007 and the Liberal hypocrisy is Stunning isn’t it?

    In reading all the articles provided in addition to this article, yes, ‘many people’ – ‘many countries’
    were ‘on board’ in Iraq until things presumably went sour and left Bush holding the bag… Just like the liberal cowards to cut and run…

    The ‘optimist’ in me says these oppressive leaders ‘must’ provide ‘hateful propaganda’ about the West to their [ illiterate, uneducated] masses in order to keep a ‘strangle hold’ on their loyalty to them. Telling their masses ‘the lies’ will only make them ‘feel’ better off compared to the ‘ horrible oppressive West’ . I could be wrong , but, I believe the Internet/Social Networking is educating a lot of people these days [on what's really going on] and the ‘ propaganda’ is loosing the edge it once had. This is much to the detriment of said countries, leaders. Which is why the leaders want control over the internet ‘switch’.

    ReplyReply
  6. johngalt says: 6

    So, what we have are two different President’s and their admins, both speaking about ousting a current, sitting leader of a country.

    What’s the difference?

    Well, for one, we know Obama is all talk, and little to no substance.

    Secondly, even if Obama was to actually, you know, do something, the liberals would be in full support of his actions, even if it meant spreading the US military even thinner than it is. And, there would be no outcry about that or the fact that we are engaging in “imperialism”.

    The left has already shown that hypocrisy is a major part of their make-up.

    ReplyReply
  7. dscott says: 7

    I think we have the beginnings of a Wag the Dog situation in Libya. Obama needs a distraction from his economic mess and a little war is just the Rx.

    ReplyReply
  8. DrJohn says: 8

    One thing I like about Libya is that you can spell “Moammar” and “Gadaffi” pretty much any way you want and you’re likely to be correct.
    :-D

    ReplyReply
  9. Wordsmith says: 9

    Heh…check this out, via BlackFive:

    Rebels called on Thursday for a no-fly zone, echoing a demand by Libya’s deputy U.N. envoy, who now opposes Gaddafi.

    “Bring Bush! Make a no fly zone, bomb the planes,” shouted soldier-turned-rebel Nasr Ali, referring to a no-fly zone imposed on Iraq in 1991 by then U.S. President George Bush. (Reuters)

    ReplyReply
  10. DrJohn says: 10

    @Wordsmith: That’s got to leave a mark….

    ReplyReply
  11. blast says: 11

    @drjohn,
    you must have taken basket weaving, since you have woven together a pile of junk meaning nothing…

    quoting dr john

    One has to ask- were a well-armed militia of tens thousands of fed-up Americans to organize via a social network and decide that the time had come to remove Barack Obama for his efforts to destroy this country with debt and his installation of an Attorney General who represents only “his people”, would the US military use its weapons to stop them?

    This is breathtakingly screwed up. Even the suggestion is seditious and ANTI AMERICAN. We have a system under the Constitution to deal with issues. Obviously a MAJORITY of people (electoral college votes) elected Obama. He is President for 4 years, or until he is removed through lawful ways.

    What really gets me from the so called “conservatives” is they are nothing of the sort. Conservatives wrap themselves in the flag and then stomp on everything it represents. If you have some legitimate issues make your case in the House of Representatives. Go and attempt to impeach the president, but your “militia” concept is NUTS. This is the most vile of UNAMERICAN THINGS I HAVE EVER READ – on the left or right.

    Oh, yeah, you are just making a veiled comment “One has to ask…” It is obvious what you are saying.

    ReplyReply
  12. DrJohn says: 12

    @blast: I’m sorry- did you want to even try to deal with the hypothetical?

    Gadaffi’s government is legitimate. Libya has held a seat on the UN’s Human Rights Council. Mariah Carey has entertained Gadaffi and so has Nellie Furtado. It’s difficult to see how any rebel action in Libya is something other than sedition.

    Gaddafi considers Obama a Muslim “son.”

    So please avoid copping an attitude about how terrible Gadaffi is now. He is suppressing an insurrection just as would be happening in my hypothetical example above.

    Gee- you think Obama would smile and shake hands with Gadaffi if he wasn’t the legitimate leader of his country?

    Hmmm?

    ReplyReply
  13. DrJohn says: 13

    Not everybody thought Gadaffi was a bad guy

    Mariah, Beyoncé, Usher and Gaddafi Money

    ReplyReply
  14. blast says: 14

    @ dr john,

    So please avoid copping an attitude about how terrible Gadaffi is now. He is suppressing an insurrection just as would be happening in my hypothetical example above.

    I won’t compare Libya with the USA, because there is no COMPARISON. We have a Constitution which has endured for 223 years… through many insurrections (including Washington taking the field to suppress one), a civil war, and many other wars. Oh… and peaceful transitions of power.

    There is no equivalency between Obama and Gaddafi. That is just ridiculous. I am not coping an attitude, I am pointing out the shear lunacy in your statement.

    ReplyReply
  15. anticsrocks says: 15

    The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush had the balls to do something about Iraq. Obie will consult with Michelle and she will come up with a plan to help the Libyan schools rework their lunch programs…

    ReplyReply
  16. John Cooper says: 16

    blast writes: “…your “militia” concept is NUTS. This is the most vile of UNAMERICAN THINGS I HAVE EVER READ – on the left or right. ”

    Dear blast. You must not get out much if that’s the “most unamerican things I have read” (in all caps). Ever heard of the Declaration of Independence?

    …whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

    What do you think they were talking about there, calling their legislators?

    ReplyReply
  17. DrJohn says: 17

    @blast: Gadaffi has been in power since 1969. That’s not 233 years, but it is over 40. He has been recognized as the legitimate leader of Libya by OBAMA and by liberal entertainers who were all too willing to take his money.

    Why is that so hard for you to understand?

    As for me, I never liked the guy, but your putrid lefties were the ones who embraced him.

    ReplyReply
  18. blast says: 18

    @dr john

    Gadaffi has been in power since 1969. That’s not 233 years, but it is over 40.

    You were drawing the comparison, YOU were “hypothesizing” with the “One has to ask…” and comparing the US with Libya and by definition comparing our form of government. And parenthetically, the Constitution of the United States is 223 years old this year… which is the supreme law of the land which is the basis for the authority for the federal government… not 233 years, which was the Deceleration of Independence and not a law.

    ReplyReply
  19. blast says: 19

    @john cooper

    …whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

    John Cooper:

    “What do you think they were talking about there, calling their legislators?”

    and if you continued reading the Declaration of Independence the following sentence says…

    from the Deceleration of Independence: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    And if you really read below the fold… you can read the grievances of the colonists. Which of course could not vote for King or members of the Parliament. You do have a voice in the leadership of this country. You can vote for your government, they could not. And if “states” are unhappy about the state of affairs between themselves and the federal government, the constitution provides the solution:

    from the Constitution of the US, Article 5: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    ReplyReply
  20. anticsrocks says: 20

    The Declaration of Independence may not be the law of the land, but it IS the basis for our Democratic Republic.

    ReplyReply
  21. Wordsmith says: 21

    Paul Miller:

    his attempt to overthrow the Libyan government is not a principled stand for liberty; it is an opportunistic attempt to stay in the good graces of world opinion. It is otherwise unclear what U.S. interests Obama thinks are at stake in North Africa that would justify military force and regime change. It cannot be human rights: nothing in the administration’s record would suggest it values human rights highly enough that their violation would prompt the overthrow of a government.

    ~~~

    The administration looks to me like it is being driven by the CNN effect. Libya is in the headlines, dramatic events are afoot, so the administration believes it must do something, it must act, probably to demonstrate resolve, or exercise leadership. It isn’t leadership to let the media drive your foreign policy. If the exact same thing were happening right now in Equatorial Guinea, no one would care and we would not be contemplating a no-fly zone.

    The administration is blundering into an unnecessary crisis, setting unrealistic expectations about our ability to drive events in Libya, and exposing itself to the dangers of unplanned escalation and mission creep. If we’re to have a grand strategy centered on building the liberal democratic peace — which is not a terrible idea — it should start from more considered reflection, not lurching overreaction to a crisis over which we have little control.

    ReplyReply
  22. Wordsmith says: 22

    Krauthammer:

    Moreover, that systemized brutality made Hussein immovable in a way that Gaddafi is not. Barely armed Libyans have already seized half the country on their own. Yet in Iraq, there was no chance of putting an end to the regime without the terrible swift sword (it took all of three weeks) of the United States.

    No matter the hypocritical double standard. Now that revolutions are sweeping the Middle East and everyone is a convert to George W. Bush’s freedom agenda, it’s not just Iraq that has slid into the memory hole. Also forgotten is the once proudly proclaimed “realism” of Years One and Two of President Obama’s foreign policy – the “smart power” antidote to Bush’s alleged misty-eyed idealism.

    It began on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s first Asia trip, when she publicly played down human rights concerns in China. The administration also cut aid for democracy promotion in Egypt by 50 percent. And cut civil society funds – money for precisely the organizations we now need to help Egyptian democracy – by 70 percent.

    This new realism reached its apogee with Obama’s reticence and tardiness in saying anything in support of the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran. On the contrary, Obama made clear that nuclear negotiations with the discredited and murderous regime (talks that a child could see would go nowhere) took precedence over the democratic revolutionaries in the street – to the point where demonstrators in Tehran chanted, “Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them.”

    Now that revolution has spread from Tunisia to Oman, however, the administration is rushing to keep up with the new dispensation, repeating the fundamental tenet of the Bush Doctrine that Arabs are no exception to the universal thirst for dignity and freedom.

    Iraq, of course, required a sustained U.S. military engagement to push back totalitarian forces trying to extinguish the new Iraq. But is this not what we are being asked to do with a no-fly zone over Libya? In conditions of active civil war, taking command of Libyan airspace requires a sustained military engagement.

    Now, it can be argued that the price in blood and treasure that America paid to establish Iraq’s democracy was too high. But whatever side you take on that question, what’s unmistakable is that to the Middle Easterner, Iraq today is the only functioning Arab democracy, with multiparty elections and the freest press. Its democracy is fragile and imperfect – last week, security forces cracked down on demonstrators demanding better services – but were Egypt to be as politically developed in, say, a year as is Iraq today, we would think it a great success.

    For Libyans, the effect of the Iraq war is even more concrete. However much bloodshed they face, they have been spared the threat of genocide. Gaddafi was so terrified by what we did to Saddam & Sons that he plea-bargained away his weapons of mass destruction. For a rebel in Benghazi, that is no small matter.

    Yet we have been told incessantly how Iraq poisoned the Arab mind against America. Really? Where is the rampant anti-Americanism in any of these revolutions? In fact, notes Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, the United States has been “conspicuously absent from the sloganeering.”

    It’s Yemen’s president and the delusional Gaddafi who are railing against American conspiracies to rule and enslave. The demonstrators in the streets of Egypt, Iran and Libya have been straining their eyes for America to help. They are not chanting the antiwar slogans – remember “No blood for oil”? – of the American left. Why would they? America is leaving Iraq having taken no oil, having established no permanent bases, having left behind not a puppet regime but a functioning democracy. This, after Iraq’s purple-fingered exercises in free elections seen on television everywhere set an example for the entire region.

    Facebook and Twitter have surely mediated this pan-Arab (and Iranian) reach for dignity and freedom. But the Bush Doctrine set the premise.

    ReplyReply
  23. anticsrocks says: 23

    @Wordsmith:

    Facebook and Twitter have surely mediated this pan-Arab (and Iranian) reach for dignity and freedom. But the Bush Doctrine set the premise.

    Krauthammer’s statement here is very powerful, thanks for posting it, Wordsmith.

    ReplyReply
  24. John Cooper says: 24

    Krauthammer must be reading my E-mail. I wrote a friend two days ago, proposing that : “History should record that GW Bush planted the seeds of liberty and self-government among the Arab states of the Middle East.”

    Obama will somehow manage to f**k it all up, though.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>