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
IraqiLibyan 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’sLibya’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 HusseinLibyan 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
IraqLibya. The resolution condemned the “gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya” and demanded that SaddamGadhafi 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. 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.