Double Standard-Wielding Liberals Scramble To Cover Obama’s Go It Alone Syria Strategy

To A Liberal, Go It Alone Is Only A Bad Strategy When A Republican Does It.

The same liberal pundits and media types who attacked President Bush for not having international support to invade Iraq are now scrambling to pretend that President Obama’s “go it alone” Syria strategy is perfectly fine.  In the fine tradition of historical revisionists everywhere, they’re even claiming that Obama’s possible support from France and Turkey is more legitimate than Bush’s coalition of nearly 50 nations from 2003.

Bush had the support of Great Britain, and in fact British troops participated in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  Obama couldn’t even get support for airstrikes.  That makes no difference, say liberals.  We’ve got France!

“In laying out the case for military strikes on Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday had praise for the French, who he called “our oldest ally,” but snubbed any mention of the British”

This is the continuation of the fine Obama tradition of trashing our allies while embracing our enemies.  France, as an example, broke the arms embargo against Iraq repeatedly, opposed the invasion and in fact has failed to support us many times before when it came to military actions.  Naturally John Kerry calls self-serving, America-snubbing France “our oldest ally.”

Had this sorry excuse for a foreign policy been on Bush’s watch, the press would be mocking him nonstop.  Instead, the press is bashing Bush in an attempt to make Obama look good, and even telling factually verifiable whoppers like this one from Time’s Jay Newton-Small in her non-sequiteur of an article, “Six Ways Syria 2013 Isn’t Iraq 2003:”

France and much of Europe weren’t wild about going to war in Iraq. France is now spearheading the effort to oust Assad, although Germany and southern Europe remain skeptical of military involvement. Britain, of course, was as much on board with Iraq in 2003 as it is with Syria in 2013.

Out of “France and much of Europe,” only France is possibly going to support action against Syria.  And how exactly is Britain “as much on board” with Syria as it was in Iraq when Britain’s parliament just vetoed action in Syria, while Britain contributed almost 50,000 troops to the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

If you’re an intellectually dishonest and history-revising liberal, you don’t have to answer that question.  It’s much the same way one can claim that Bush’s nearly 50 supporting nations, four of which actually participated in the invasion, counts for less than Obama’s possible support from France and/or Turkey.  It doesn’t have to make any kind of factual or intellectual sense; it’s how liberals want things to be and so that’s how they are.

To sum up:  Bush go it alone Iraq policy bad.  Obama go it alone Syria policy….good.

Congressional Oversight?  Who needs it?

When Bush was preparing to attack Iraq, Democrats in Congress threatened everything up to and including impeachment if he didn’t get Congress to approve action.  But according to Democrats like Dianne Feinstein, Congress has no need to approve action.  When asked if Obama should wait for Congress to give approval for an attack on Syria, Feinstein said:

There have been consultations. There will be more consultations. This is not to send troops over, as I understand it. So the answer is not necessarily.

Apparently military action against a country that has not in any way threatened the United States or its allies doesn’t bother Feinstein either, even if it means Obama does it in a “go it alone” fashion.  But it sure seemed to when Bush wanted to do it, even though Iraq was arguably in violation of the Gulf War ceasefire and had repeatedly fired on our aircraft patrolling the “no-fly” zones.

“America has never been an aggressor nation unless attacked, as we were at Pearl Harbor and on Sept. 11, or our interests and our allies were attacked,” Feinstein said. “We have never initiated a major invasion against another nation-state, which leads to the question of whether a pre-emptive war is the morally right, legally right, or the politically right way for the United States to proceed.” – 9/16/2002

That was in response to Bush formally asking for Congressional authorization to use force, which he eventually got.  Obama never bothers with formalities like Congressional approval, Syria has far less to do with our national security than Iraq did and yet Feinstein and friends say he doesn’t even need to ask?  What’s changed?

Could it be that the president has a (D) in front of his name?

It’s been said before and it needs repeating now.  Liberals have no morals, no patriotism, no intellectual honesty and all history to a liberal is revisionist.