President Obama is getting a lot of criticism, from both the Left and the Right, for his actions in Iraq. I'm going to be different: I think he's basically doing the right thing, but I'm going to criticize him for being inconsistent. Barack Obama was elected to the Presidency, in part, because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. And yet I see little difference between Iraq and Libya:
The only differences I can see are that
Whether Obama is simply refusing to accept that the US should act in its own interests and we must only do what the French will accept, or it's Saddam Hussein's money, in either case, it does not put Barack Obama in a good light.
- Both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi posed little direct threat to the United States,
- Both, however, were vicious dictators who killed large numbers of their own people, and
- Both were significant threats to their neighbors and to the stability of the Middle East.
The only differences I can see are that
- French Presidant Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be firmly supporting action against Libya, but France was not willing to act against Iraq, and
- Obama was the beneficiary of money from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He has no connection to Qaddafi. That seems, to me, to be the main difference.
Whether Obama is simply refusing to accept that the US should act in its own interests and we must only do what the French will accept, or it's Saddam Hussein's money, in either case, it does not put Barack Obama in a good light.
No comments:
Post a Comment