Wherein Barack Obama Channels George Dubya Bush

Remember when Barack Obama was against all that Bush was for?

Debt limit being raised?  Against it.  [Though to be fair, every single Democrat in the Senate, every single one, voted against it.  And I suspect now that each and every one will vote FOR it.  Again, in the spirit of fairness, every single Republican also voted FOR it.  Sill y business hits.]

War in Iraq?  Against it.

Gitmo?  Against it.

Rendition?  Against it.

And now this one.  Libya.

See, George Dubya wanted regime change in certain nations.  And Barry thought that was a bad idea.  In fact, he even took time to speak to this during his now famous Cairo [Cairo-hahahahaha] speech:

By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / June 5, 2009

Washington

Tucked inside President Obama’s 55-minute speech Thursday to the world’s Muslims were four paragraphs that laid out his approach to democracy.

His message? America recognizes a universal yearning for the right to self-government, but regime change in democracy’s name is over.

“No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other,” Mr. Obama said.

That premise distances the president from the controversial doctrines of the Bush administration and reestablishes a more traditional approach to encouraging democracy.

With this policy change on the part of the Obama administration, this new development makes sense, right?

ISTANBUL — The United States and other nations on Friday formally recognized Libya’s main opposition group as the country’s legitimate government until a new interim authority is formed.

See?

Hope and Change folks, Hope and Change.

 

6 responses to “Wherein Barack Obama Channels George Dubya Bush

  1. Nobody would believe me when I said that this is Bush’s third term. :p

    • Nobody would believe me when I said that this is Bush’s third term. :p

      HA!

      Maybe this is why some Liberals are upset at the man!

  2. I agree that there’s a lot of seriously messed up elements of foreign policy, but I don’t think these two elements are necessarily in contradiction. It’s the difference between actively changing a regime (we invade and depose) and recognizing a rebel force as the legitimate government. Granted, Libya is somewhere in between thanks to our essentially one-sided use of force to support the rebels, and I have issues with that, but I think it’s fair to say that our involvement in Libya isn’t “imposed regime change” like, say, Iraq.

    • Granted, Libya is somewhere in between thanks to our essentially one-sided use of force to support the rebels, and I have issues with that</i

      I have zero issue with the fact that US forces, within NATO, are running missions. That's the danger is being part of an alliance; some decisions may not be 100% in line with how we wanna do it.

      But, I do have an issue with us saying we are going to build a no fly zone and then basically attack the armed forces.

      I think it’s fair to say that our involvement in Libya isn’t “imposed regime change” like, say, Iraq.

      Certainly the level of involvement is different. There is little doubt that leaving Libya will be easier than leaving Iraq. But I represent that the difference is in the “how” not the “what”.

  3. pino ,

    You could do a whole thread on Obama’s hypocrisy . All of the things candidate Obama said , and all of the things that President Obama did . How about the continuation of the Bush wiretaps ? Now I have no problem with the wire taps, just the hypocrisy . As I remember, Democrats were really put out by those wiretaps . Now they could care less .

    • All of the things candidate Obama said , and all of the things that President Obama did .

      Obama of today would lose to Obama of yesterday.

Leave a Reply