Oh how different it is when Obama's in charge. The hypocrisy just oozes from his arrogant socialist pride. As Larry Elder wrote the other day:
Quote:
Sen. Obama pre-emptively criticized President George W. Bush in 2007 for possibly taking military action against Iran's suspected nuclear sites -- should he do so without congressional approval. Such an action, Obama said then, would be in violation of the Constitution unless the President obtained congressional approval....
Where was Obama's concern about chemical weapons during the 2002 debate on military action in Iraq?
Obama opposed the Iraq War because "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama also opposed the Iraq War for reasons that seem to apply to a Syrian intervention. "I know that an invasion of Iraq," he said then, "without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida." Wouldn't striking Syria "fan the flames of the Middle East? And isn't al-Qaida on the side of the "rebels" -- the side we support?
End quote.
~Larry Elder
Full article here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Anonymous attacks won't be tolerated here. If you want to disagree with me, then have the courtesy to be respectful and mature. Reasonable disagreements are often allowed, but please identify yourself. This isn't the place for cowards. And no, this isn't a democracy. =)
For the rest of you who visit and show courtesy and respect, thank you so much. =)