Okay, so let me see if I understand this. BO tells us that American intervention for humanitarian reasons is a part of who “we” are, but we will only intervene if the exact same circumstances at the same moment in time converge as they did in Libya. Huh?
Without that exact historical moment, coupled with the threat of haunting images of murder and mass graves (that part was weird since we all saw Iranian tanks in the streets and police mowing down unarmed protesters in ’09) and the calls from “rebels” for American assistance (again, weird, since we get those all the time, including from Iran in ’09, but I guess they weren’t al Queda, so no reason to help them), without all these factors, including less international support than President Bush had for Iraq and no vote at all in Congress (which Bush also had for Iraq, including the happy votes of current VP Clueless and Secretary of State She Who Is More Presidential than BO), there would be no U. S. intervention.
Basically, then, the “Obama Doctrine” is America will do what I want, and then I’ll make it sound like it’s a one-off. Woohoo! Go American intervention! Or not!
Then the other weird part was the dig at President Bush about Iraq. Having just spent forever explaining the uniqueness of the Libyan situation, the imminent threat . . . to Libyan civilians, and the impossible to comprehend devastation of displaced Libyan refugees migrating willy-nilly across borders (or something), and how the unique circumstances all converge to mean that the U. S. must protect them, BO said that on the other hand, if we actually went after Gadhafi, the entire situation would be completely transformed from noble and defensible to what that other guy did wrong. Or something. So we’re not using force to remove Gadhafi, from whom we’re spending billions to protect his own citizens, and we’re just . . . well, kind of hoping he’ll step down. You know, because BO asked him to. Twice.
That speech last night infuriated me, but what’s even worse is hearing the left defend this as a one-off. And they’ll defend the next one as a one-off, too, because you know, it’s so totally unique to that historical moment. But naw, he’d never use the military in a unilateral move like that war-mongering Bush. Except, well, he said last night:
I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. (source)
Leftists just love their peace president, so much so that they don’t even listen to what he says. Even when you point out that he’s stated clearly that he will indeed use unilateral military force, they just shrug, even deny it. Or maybe say that “unilateral” doesn’t mean without U. N. approval, only without the approval of Congress. Who knows what they think? They have no logic, no principles, and no consistency.
But from last night, we can take comfort in the U. S. having no coherent foreign policy, just the promise of a lunatic that he’ll decide which moment is “unique” enough to warrant American intervention, with unilateral military force on the table at all times (defending our people, homeland, allies, and core interests pretty much covers every conceivable situation).