The words uttered by Democrats over the last few weeks are nothing short of mind boggling in their flaming hypocrisy and the more they speak the worse it gets. Some are on the edge of comical, but many are worth revisiting.
Let’s start with Howard Dean:
I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations…
“If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority,”
“It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization”
“We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked presidential action,” she said, later adding: “This president was allowed for too long to commit blunder after blunder under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress”
“I want to make it clear. And I made it clear to the President that if he takes this nation to war with Iran without Congressional approval. I will make it my business to impeach him. That’s a fact. That is a fact.”
Can any of you Obama supporters tell us why this a particularly stupid statement by the long time member of the Senate Judiciary?
“Bush needs approval to invade Iran.”
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.
The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history; and he failed to build a true international coalition.
(We’ll visit that again)
On his MSNBC show this evening, Cenk Uygur suggested that opposition to President Obama’s Libya policy is “unpatriotic.” For good measure, Dem congressman Gary Ackerman stated that opposing the president is “cheering for the wrong team.”
Nancy Pelosi: Dissent is patriotic.
“This is different,” Boxer said Wednesday. Today, “you’re facing a dictator who vowed” widespread slaughter in his own country, she said, adding that Obama “did the right thing.”
Note: Saddam killed a estimated one million Iraqis
And the Hypocrite-in-Chief
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power…. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…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.
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.
No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.
The good news for Democrats is that they’re not alone.
Obama is committed to partnering with other countries rather than going it alone as did his predecessor George W. Bush, which both broadens and complicates the decision-making process.
But Al-Reutzeera finally did define the Obama doctrine;
Stung by accusations that it has sent mixed messages on Middle East events, the White House has said it is putting together a new, overarching strategy that will set out basic principles of U.S. policy toward the region.
In other words, the Obama Doctrine can be described this way:
Ready, Fire, Aim.
If hypocrisy was a crime we’d be bombing Reuters, the White House and the DNC headquarters instead of Libya.