Way back in 2002, then-Senator Barack Obama had a lot to say about the Iraq war.
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. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. 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. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
And the key argument against going to war in Iraq?
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States…
So going to war against Saddam Hussein was “dumb” because Hussein posed no imminent or direct threat to the US. Obama doctrine then was we don’t go to war when there is no imminent threat.
In 2003 George W. Bush said
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
On 2002 Nancy Pelosi said:
I have seen no evidence or intelligence that suggests that Iraq indeed poses an imminent threat to our nation.
Flash forward to today:
Obama: ISIS is not a direct or imminent threat. Head of DHS Jeh Johnson:
Hours before Barack Obama is to announce an expanded military campaign against Islamic State (Isis) militants, his senior homeland security official assessed that the organization poses no imminent danger to America at home.
“At present, we have no credible information that [Isis] is planning to attack the homeland of the United States,” Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson told a Manhattan audience on Wednesday.
Johnson is the latest in a string of top US officials to concede that the jihadist army currently in control of much of eastern Syria and northern and central Iraq is not targeting the US at present, despite beheading two captured American journalists.
If ISIS is not a direct or imminent threat, why are we bombing them? Does this not qualify as a “dumb war”? Here’s what Obama said about ISIS:
He said that ISIS poses the most direct threat to Iraq, Syria, and the broader Middle East, but “if left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States.”
So in other words, we should not wait for the ISIS threat to become imminent. Golly, I know I’ve heard that argument somewhere before.
It doesn’t end there. George Bush sought and received from Congress an Authorization to Use Military Force and won approval from Congress for the wars both in Iraq and Afghanistan. in Iraq. Two months ago Barack Obama demanded that Congress rescind the AUMF.
The Obama administration is calling on Congress to fully repeal the war authorization in Iraq to ensure that no U.S. troops return to the country, which is under siege by the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS).
White House national security adviser Susan Rice petitioned Speaker of the House John Boehner (R., Ohio) in a letter Friday to completely repeal the war authorization, officially known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, or AUMF.
Rice’s letter was sent as Congress just hours before it approved a resolution opposing U.S. military intervention in Iraq, where the terrorist group ISIL claims to have established an Islamic caliphate.
“We believe a more appropriate and timely action for Congress to take is the repeal of the outdated 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq,” Rice wrote, according to a copy of her letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
If you know anything, you know that Barack Obama’s words have no lasting value. Today Obama leans heavily that AUMF.
The administration’s embrace of the 2002 Iraq war authorization through this obscure citation is awkward because it paints the expanding anti-ISIL campaign as a successor to President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq 12 years ago. Last year at the United Nations General Assembly, Obama spoke of working “to end a decade of war” and cited the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq as a part of that effort. On Wednesday he’ll address the General Assembly the day after having essentially extended that effort.
In addition, Obama’s reliance on the measure is jarring because National Security Adviser Susan Rice wrote to House Speaker John Boehner in July to urge Congress to rescind the law. She called the Iraq War resolution “outdated” and said the White House had no plans to rely on it.
“The Iraq AUMF is no longer used for any U.S. Government activities and the Administration fully supports its repeal,” she wrote.
Barack Obama has morphed into George W. Bush but without the honesty, integrity or competency. The left’s worst nightmare has been realized.