On December 20, 2007 the Boston Globe published a Q&A they had done with then Presidential candidate Barrack Hussein Obama. Oh, I forgot that mentioning his middle name was taboo, but since he insisted that his middle name be used for his swearing in as the New President of the United States of America, I guess it is not longer an issue. I am sure I will get a lot of negatives from that small group of my readers that hate whatever I say.
It is important that my readers understand, that I am not against the Libya operation. However, I am against the President’s justification for the action. I believe that the President should have taken action much sooner given the fact that Libya’s own government members, who recently defected, admitted that Qaddafi had personally ordered the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The bomb placed on the 747 flight, exploded on December 21, 1988 while it was flying over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 243 passengers and 16 crew members , plus 11 people on the ground. Most of those killed on the plane were Americans.
So, let’s see where Obama has been on the issue of attacking a country that does not present an immediate threat to American citizens and/or the US as a whole.
Barack Obama's Q&A
By Charlie Savage
Globe Staff / December 20, 2007
For a complete transcript of this Q&A you can go to: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
“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.
As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. 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”.
Now, let’s compare what Obama said then vs. his actions now.
At the time, Obama felt that the President could only authorize military action against a country if that country presented an imminent threat to the American people and/or the US, and also that the President should inform and have the consent of Congress. However, Libya, has not presented an imminent threat to the US for several years. As a matter of fact, right after the March 2003 start of the war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, it was Qaddafi, the Leader and ruler of Libya who “voluntarily” admitted having a nuclear weapons program and then agreed also to its dismantling. He also agreed to scrapping other WMD development programs. He just wanted assurances that, at the time, he would not suffer the same fate as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.
Obama did not inform or received the consent of Congress for this action, again contrary to his own position when Bush was president.
It is also disconcerting that Obama has called Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi a threat to his own people, but just a few weeks before attacking Libya the president asked Congress to increase U.S. aid for Qaddafi's military to $1.7 million. This money, according to the US State Department led by none other than Hillary Clinton, was earmarked to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, secure its borders and to counter terrorism. While this is not a lot of money it is another one of those “doubletalk” actions from Obama. On one hand he denounces Qaddafi while on the other he props the same military that now our brave men and women in uniform have to fight in order to “protect” Libyans from genocide.
As I said before, I am all for getting this thug and murderer of Americans out of Libya, because he plotted and killed Americans, but going to war, using as an excuse that we are doing it to protect civilians is not only unconstitutional, but against what President Obama himself said before, as per his Q&A with the Globe in December 2007.
Here is the same President Obama who in 2009, while the Iranian regime was murdering civilian protestors, stated that he would not say much, because he did not want to “meddle” in internal Iranian affairs. Here is the same President who has ignored the genocide in Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and many other countries, where civilians are been murdered on the streets just for expressing their opposition to these repressive regimes. How are these human beings any different than the Libyan civilians?
To add insult to injury, while the US has carried the brunt of the actions against Qaddafi, Obama has, after tremendous infighting within the so-called allies, and in particular Germany, France, Italy and Turkey, put American fighting men and women under the command of NATO, without any real definition of what is the plan, what is the exit strategy, how much is it going to cost? Remember those questions made by the Elite Media and the Democrat Party Leadership, amongst many other factions of the Left wing in our country, from then President George W Bush as the Iraq war was going on. Where are this people now? With a few exceptions, from the likes of Ralph Nader, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, and a few others, Democrats and the Elite media remain silent.
On December 4, 2007, then Senator and presidential hopeful Joe Biden (now VP of the US) during an interview with Christ Matthews on the MSNBC Hardball show, emphatically said that he would personally work to impeach Bush if he bombed Iran without first gaining congressional approval.
Biden: If the President attacks a Country “I Would Move to Impeach”
Well, Obama has attacked a country that did not present an “imminent” threat to the US, but Biden has not lifted a finger to impeach Obama. Seems to me like more Doubletalk and also a double set of standards. By the way, at the time of the Biden speech there was significant concerns about Iran nuclear program, which, as we all know, continues unabated.
Here is the web link where you see the videos of Biden’s speeches on the matter in 2007.
The key question, if we buy Obama’s justification for attacking Libya to stop the genocide, then why did the Elite Media, and Obama himself, strongly oppose George W Bush when he attacked Iraq and stopped the continued murdering of thousands of civilians by Saddam Hussein who even used chemical weapons against his own people? Also, contrary to what the Elite Media and many Democrats say today, George W. Bush had Congressional authority for the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, while Obama does not. I Am not saying this to defend the Bush administration, but to make it clear that we need our Media and politicians to be consistent, and in particular the media has a responsibility to tell the American people the truth of the events and no play politics
While I hope and pray that we stop the genocide in Libya, Obama is sending American men and women in harm’s way and promising that in a couple of days he will turn over the operation to “others”, meaning as of today, a still undefined NATO Command. He is putting our troops under the command of someone else, yet, the US has the dominant role in terms of men and women, military equipment and treasury, which by the way has to be borrowed (money we do not have). Obama is the same person who criticized Bush about Iraq for not having an exit strategy or well defined mission. Well do you know what is the exit strategy from Libya or what is the end game? I do not think Obama knows that himself. He also does not know who the opposition really is and we may be fighting to depose a tyrant and bring another one to power. Al-Qaeda looms strongly as part of the Libyan opposition.