DUMB and DUMBER?

How does a liberal determine if a war is a good and just war or a bad, dumb, and unjust one?  Well, the answer to that question is now quite clear.  It all depends on whether a Republican or a Democrat sets in the oval office.

Even though President Obama seems to be channeling the actions of George Bush in military matters, we’re seeing an exact opposite reaction by the liberal media, and for the most part, liberals in general.  There are a few exceptions, like Dennis Kucinich and a couple others that, if nothing else, are at least showing some consistency.

Perhaps the most inconsistent of all politicians is Obama himself.   On December 20, 2007, he made the following assertion in an interview with the Boston Globe. “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,”   And on Oct. 2, 2002 Obama said that he isn't "opposed to all war," only "dumb war, rash war."    Well, if the war with Saddam Hussein was a “dumb” war, then the war with Gadhafi is without a doubt a “dumber” war.

Regarding the justifications for war with Iraq, state Sen. Obama said: "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity ... But ... Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors ..."

REALLY?   He didn’t believe that Saddam posed a danger to the United States or to his neighbors even though he had attacked or invaded three of his neighbors: Iran, Kuwait, and Israel.    Gadhafi on the other hand, has hardly ranged beyond his own borders.

Even though Obama (like the rest of the world) was convinced that Saddam had "developed chemical and biological weapons" -- and though he knew that Saddam had actually attacked his own people from the air with chemical weapons -- he didn't think that his possession of those weapons warranted war.  In Gadhafi's case, there is no threat of WMD because he wisely relinquished his WMD program after seeing Saddam's fate.

Now that the United States has joined the war against Moammar Gadhafi, I think we are at least entitled to an explanation.  How is the case for war against Gadhafi smarter (remember, Obama is only against "dumb" wars) or less "ideological" or more prudent than that for war against Saddam Hussein?

Certainly, with an army of only 50,000, Gadhafi represents far less of a threat to his neighbors or to us than did Saddam, who commanded an army estimated at 350,000. As for humanitarian concerns, what Gadhafi is doing to the rebels in Libya is exactly what Saddam did to his domestic enemies, but on a reduced scale. As Obama himself said, Saddam is "a ruthless man ... who butchers his own people to secure his power." Yet that didn't justify a war, state Sen. Obama told us.

If Obama really believed what he said about Iraq and Saddam Hussein, doesn't that seem a good rationale for not committing anymore treasure -- which we have run out of -- and possibly more American lives with no greater goal than unseating Gadhafi in the hope that someone better will take his place?

Yes indeed, It seems like only yesterday when we had an "imperialist warmonger" in the White House who was going to be replaced by a peace-loving Democrat who promised "hope" and "change".  Well, how’s that working out for you liberals?  We still have troops in Iraq, we've escalated the war in Afghanistan, and now we're bombing the crap out of Libya.  Oh yeah, and  Obama signed an order closing Guantanamo prison as his first presidential act, but recently announced it will stay open and the military tribunals established by President Bush and supported by Congress will resume.

I always had serious doubts whether or not the lefties actually believed any of the crap they were spewing about the war on terrorism when Bush was in office.  I’m not passing judgment on either war, but if it was true then, it is just as true now, so where are all the massive protests.