• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Indicts Obama

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
by Victor Davis Hanson
September 1st, 2013


One of the problems that Barack Obama has in mounting an attack against the Assad regime is that the gambit violates every argument Barack Obama used against the Bush administration to establish his own anti-war candidacy.

The hypocrisy is so stunning that it infuriates his critics and stuns his supporters.

Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point. He used it to great effect against both Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war) in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in the general election. For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters.

And now? His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. First, the U.S. president can attack a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress (unlike the Iraq war when George W. Bush obtained authorization from both houses of Congress). Even if Obama gets a no vote, he said that he reserves the right to strike.

Second, Obama assumes that the U.S. must go it alone and attack unilaterally (unlike the coalition of the willing of some 40 nations that joined us in Iraq).

Third, it is unnecessary even to approach the UN (unlike Iraq when the Bush administration desperately sought UN support).

Fourth, the U.S. president must make a judgment call on the likelihood of WMD use, which is grounds ipso facto to go to war (unlike Iraq when the vast majority of the 23 congressionally authorized writs had nothing to do with WMD [e.g., genocide of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds, bounties to suicide bombers, harboring of international terrorists, violations of UN agreements, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, etc.]).

So review for a moment the Old Obama case against the New Obama.

{snip}
Dr. Barack and Mr. Hyde

So why is there such a disconnect between what Obama once declared and what he subsequently professed? There are four explanations, none of them mutually exclusive:


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Works and Days » Obama Indicts Obama

Mr. Hanson does seem to be able to describe things correctly.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,732
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
by Victor Davis Hanson
September 1st, 2013


One of the problems that Barack Obama has in mounting an attack against the Assad regime is that the gambit violates every argument Barack Obama used against the Bush administration to establish his own anti-war candidacy.

The hypocrisy is so stunning that it infuriates his critics and stuns his supporters.

Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point. He used it to great effect against both Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war) in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in the general election. For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters.

And now? His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. First, the U.S. president can attack a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress (unlike the Iraq war when George W. Bush obtained authorization from both houses of Congress). Even if Obama gets a no vote, he said that he reserves the right to strike.

Second, Obama assumes that the U.S. must go it alone and attack unilaterally (unlike the coalition of the willing of some 40 nations that joined us in Iraq).

Third, it is unnecessary even to approach the UN (unlike Iraq when the Bush administration desperately sought UN support).

Fourth, the U.S. president must make a judgment call on the likelihood of WMD use, which is grounds ipso facto to go to war (unlike Iraq when the vast majority of the 23 congressionally authorized writs had nothing to do with WMD [e.g., genocide of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds, bounties to suicide bombers, harboring of international terrorists, violations of UN agreements, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, etc.]).

So review for a moment the Old Obama case against the New Obama.

{snip}
Dr. Barack and Mr. Hyde

So why is there such a disconnect between what Obama once declared and what he subsequently professed? There are four explanations, none of them mutually exclusive:


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Works and Days » Obama Indicts Obama

Mr. Hanson does seem to be able to describe things correctly.




The link on this post goes to PJMedia, a neocon website.

I am not interested in reading what any neocon 'thinks' about anything.

The neocons drug the USA into Iraq, remember that mess?
 

Brooks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The link on this post goes to PJMedia, a neocon website.

I am not interested in reading what any neocon 'thinks' about anything.

The neocons drug the USA into Iraq, remember that mess?
Shrub, if PJ media said the ocean was wet would you dispute it just because?
Challenge the material not the source.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,732
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
by Victor Davis Hanson
September 1st, 2013


One of the problems that Barack Obama has in mounting an attack against the Assad regime is that the gambit violates every argument Barack Obama used against the Bush administration to establish his own anti-war candidacy.

The hypocrisy is so stunning that it infuriates his critics and stuns his supporters.

Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point. He used it to great effect against both Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war) in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in the general election. For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters.

And now? His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. First, the U.S. president can attack a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress (unlike the Iraq war when George W. Bush obtained authorization from both houses of Congress). Even if Obama gets a no vote, he said that he reserves the right to strike.

Second, Obama assumes that the U.S. must go it alone and attack unilaterally (unlike the coalition of the willing of some 40 nations that joined us in Iraq).

Third, it is unnecessary even to approach the UN (unlike Iraq when the Bush administration desperately sought UN support).

Fourth, the U.S. president must make a judgment call on the likelihood of WMD use, which is grounds ipso facto to go to war (unlike Iraq when the vast majority of the 23 congressionally authorized writs had nothing to do with WMD [e.g., genocide of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds, bounties to suicide bombers, harboring of international terrorists, violations of UN agreements, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, etc.]).

So review for a moment the Old Obama case against the New Obama.

{snip}
Dr. Barack and Mr. Hyde

So why is there such a disconnect between what Obama once declared and what he subsequently professed? There are four explanations, none of them mutually exclusive:


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Works and Days » Obama Indicts Obama

Mr. Hanson does seem to be able to describe things correctly.

Shrub, if PJ media said the ocean was wet would you dispute it just because?
Challenge the material not the source.




If you want to read what PJ Media has to say 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from now until the end of time, get after it.

But I won't be there with you for one minute. I have better things to do with my time.

Have a nice day.
 

Brooks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If you want to read what PJ Media has to say 24 hours a day, 7 days a week from now until the end of time, get after it.

But I won't be there with you for one minute. I have better things to do with my time.

Have a nice day.
I don't recall saying I wanted to do that, but, whatever.

If you have a problem with what was actually written you should say why, not simply that you don't like the source.
You might make good points and we could all learn a little something.
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,732
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
by Victor Davis Hanson
September 1st, 2013


One of the problems that Barack Obama has in mounting an attack against the Assad regime is that the gambit violates every argument Barack Obama used against the Bush administration to establish his own anti-war candidacy.

The hypocrisy is so stunning that it infuriates his critics and stuns his supporters.

Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point. He used it to great effect against both Hillary Clinton (who voted for the war) in the Democratic primaries and John McCain in the general election. For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters.

And now? His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. First, the U.S. president can attack a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress (unlike the Iraq war when George W. Bush obtained authorization from both houses of Congress). Even if Obama gets a no vote, he said that he reserves the right to strike.

Second, Obama assumes that the U.S. must go it alone and attack unilaterally (unlike the coalition of the willing of some 40 nations that joined us in Iraq).

Third, it is unnecessary even to approach the UN (unlike Iraq when the Bush administration desperately sought UN support).

Fourth, the U.S. president must make a judgment call on the likelihood of WMD use, which is grounds ipso facto to go to war (unlike Iraq when the vast majority of the 23 congressionally authorized writs had nothing to do with WMD [e.g., genocide of the Marsh Arabs and Kurds, bounties to suicide bombers, harboring of international terrorists, violations of UN agreements, attempts to kill a former U.S. president, etc.]).

So review for a moment the Old Obama case against the New Obama.

{snip}
Dr. Barack and Mr. Hyde

So why is there such a disconnect between what Obama once declared and what he subsequently professed? There are four explanations, none of them mutually exclusive:


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Works and Days » Obama Indicts Obama

Mr. Hanson does seem to be able to describe things correctly.

Shrub, if PJ media said the ocean was wet would you dispute it just because?
Challenge the material not the source.

I don't recall saying I wanted to do that, but, whatever.

If you have a problem with what was actually written you should say why, not simply that you don't like the source
.
You might make good points and we could all learn a little something.




I am just going to say that I have interacted with PJ Media in the past and I don't care for the way that it operates.

That's all that I have to say about those losers.
 

Brooks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I am just going to say that I have interacted with PJ Media in the past and I don't care for the way that it operates.

That's all that I have to say about those losers.


Fair enough.
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Brooks,
In actuality, Shrubnose has a personal problem with me but has already been warned by the moderators. He's on ignore and I refuse to read any of his tripe. I treat his posts with the contempt they deserve by not acknowledging him or his posts.
 

SBu

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
636
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Sooooo, getting back to the discussion. One doesn't even have to look at the link to agree that Obama is a hypocrite. He should have known about the requisite "presidential intervention" clause of his job description before indicating a passive presidency. Being a hypocrite isn't so bad in politics, it's sort of expected. The real shame is the lack of leadership and accountability across the board.
 

a351

#NeverTrump
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
4,825
Location
Space Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hypocrisy would indeed apply if the two situations were in any way similar. Precision airstrikes are not equitable to an invasion and subsequent occupation which ultimately amounted to over 100 thousand US boots on the ground. Some will have to learn this the hard way.
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sooooo, getting back to the discussion. One doesn't even have to look at the link to agree that Obama is a hypocrite. He should have known about the requisite "presidential intervention" clause of his job description before indicating a passive presidency. Being a hypocrite isn't so bad in politics, it's sort of expected. The real shame is the lack of leadership and accountability across the board.

I've been posting the same thing. When one considers that Mr. Obama experience in politics can be that on a novice level his decisions have to be orchestrated by others. Remember Obama's statement that we should judge him by those that surround him. Other than the politicians, Obama's advisors have been rank amateurs, or people like Axelrod, Ayers, Geithner, etc.
 
Last edited:

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,176
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Moderator's Warning:
Who you do or do not have on ignore isn't the topic of this thread nor appropriate discussion for upstairs. Continued baiting/personal attacks will result in action. Similarly, if you have nothing to say about the topic of a thread and don't wish to engage in discussing said topic, don't post. Continually posting in a thread to simply say the topic is bad and that you won't discuss it is trolling.

Continued violations by anyone will result in further action
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,483
Reaction score
9,070
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Hypocrisy would indeed apply if the two situations were in any way similar. Precision airstrikes are not equitable to an invasion and subsequent occupation which ultimately amounted to over 100 thousand US boots on the ground. Some will have to learn this the hard way.
A foreign military's violation of a Nation's Sovereignty, is a foreign military's violation of a Nation's Sovereignty.

It is an act of War regardless of it's extent.
 
Top Bottom