107 SHARES Facebook Twitter

Barack Obama says he was all for World War II:

I don’t oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

He doesn’t oppose all wars- just dumb Bush wars:

I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.

And he is opposed to wars which distract us from our terrible economy:

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

And he is opposed to a war in which there is no threat to the United States, because that would be a dumb war:

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.

And we should fight with those who oppress their people- like the Saudi’s

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

Here’s Barack Obama making sure the Saudis don’t oppress their own people.

Barack Obama has done nothing to stop the Saudis from oppressing their own people but Barack Obama said we should fight them to stop the oppression.

Both Curt and I have observed how eerily similar Obama’s actions recent actions are to those just prior to the Iraq war. Now so has Drudge:

MARCH 19, 2011

OBAMA: ‘Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world’… MARCH 19, 2003

BUSH: ‘American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger’…

The actions taken by Obama represent a complete reversal of his own administration. Not long ago the establishment of a no-fly zone was called “loose talk” by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. The Secretary of State said that the US was “a long way from making that decision.” In fact, Gates said, the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya would constitute “an act of war.”

“A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya.”

Now I know for a fact that Congress has not authorized this action by the US military. I also know how someone else named Barack Obama opposed any such action:

Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? A: 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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

So Barack Obama said that Barack Obama does not have the authority to initiate the military action that Barack Obama just ordered and Barack Obama is in violation of the legislation proposed by Barack Obama.

If you really want to read the words of a miserable lying hypocrite- just read the entire article at the link. For example:

Q: Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? A: I reject the view that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority. Some further points: * The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.

* Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.

* The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

* The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

Barack Obama has ordered military trials to continue at Gitmo, but Barack Obama said they were unlawful.

But that’s for another post.

And please remember Obama’s words here:

A: It is absolutely clear that Pres. Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology.

Facts.

Until Barack Obama became President, the media increasingly took to describing the Iraqi conflict as a “civil war.”

In 2006 the Alternet outright called Iraq a civil war and argued that its being a civil war was a reason to get out.

James Joyner said that you can’t win with civil wars.

Dick Durbin said We cannot police a civil war.

In The Democratic Strategist it is recommended that one way for Democrats to argue and win a debate about Iraq is to maintain that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and we not stay involved.

Libya is in the midst of a civil war.

“Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power” said Barack Obama but Barack Obama said Gaddafi must leave Libya.

In Cairo in 2009 Barack Obama said

So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

Barack Obama also said

“Change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power.

The Obama sops at Politico said there was something behind these bombings;

Then there’s the feasibility of the larger underlying mission — ousting Qadhafi through the destruction of his military infrastructure, a kind of regime change on the cheap. “The use-of-force resolution is focused on protecting civilians, not removing Qadhafi from power … but everything else we’re doing is aimed at pressuring him to give up power,” said a senior administration official.

So Barack Obama said that change in Libya will not be imposed by the United States or any foreign power but Barack Obama is using the US and foreign power to impose change in Libya.

In the Libyan civil war, rebels have engaged Gaddafi in an armed insurrection. It is NOT the peaceful protest Barack Obama has repeatedly described.

“The suffering and bloodshed is outrageous and it is unacceptable, so are threats and orders to shoot peaceful protesters,” Obama said in his first televised remarks on the situation in Libya. “These actions violate international norms and every standard of common decency. This violence must stop.”

Obama has not once properly described the civil war sparked by armed rebels.

President Obama says it is imperative that the world speak “with one voice” to condemn the suppression of peaceful demonstrators in Libya and to support their universal rights, and adds that the administration is preparing “a full range of options” that the United States can take unilaterally and multilaterally in response to the ongoing violence.

He keeps calling them “protesters” and “demonstrators.” They are armed revolutionaries.

One need not go back very long in time to see Barack Obama feel differently:

When President George Bush said

The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. On Saddam Hussein’s orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

Candidate Barack Obama said Bush was wrong and “dumb” to get into a war over that.

Now President Obama says of Gaddafi:

For decades, he has demonstrated a willingness to use brute force through his sponsorship of terrorism against the American people as well as others, and through the killings that he has carried out within his own borders. And just yesterday, speaking of the city of Benghazi — a city of roughly 700,000 people — he threatened, and I quote: “We will have no mercy and no pity” — no mercy on his own citizens.

Surely candidate Obama would find this wrong and dumb to get into a war over.

President Barack Obama has committed an act of war against Libya without the permission of Congress. There is no imminent threat to the US from Libya. President Obama has repeatedly lied about situation in Libya. It has to be about oil, right?

Barack Obama the candidate would demand impeachment of Barack Obama the President.