Obama embraces pre-emptive war Bush doctrine he used to hate (1 Viewer)

[urbanhack]

this is a long read, but some solid points.

Barack Obama, Neocon?A friend and Power Line reader has been emailing me to express outrage at the Democrats’ inconsistency in supporting President Obama’s implementation of the Bush Doctrine. I asked him to write up a post; here it is:

President Obama’s September 10 speech announcing his intention to “degrade” and “ultimately destroy” ISIL in Iraq and Syria poses a huge political and ideological problem for the Dems and the left. The reason is simple: Obama’s decision to wage war amounts to an endorsement of the Bush Doctrine of preëmption and a repudiation of the most fundamental rationale for His presidency in the first place: opposition to the Iraq War and, in general, “wars of choice.” It is also a repudiation of the anti-war Democrats who opposed the Iraq War Resolution and, more broadly, of the left’s ideology on foreign policy. Obama’s plan to attack ISIL has already caused huge cognitive dissonance on the left, which can only increase over time.

Virtually no one, NO ONE, opposing the IWR on the left, including Illinois state senator Obama, opposed it because he thought Iraq did NOT have WMDs. The argument was that there was no “imminent threat.” Of course, the Bush administration never argued the threat was “imminent”; just the opposite — that we could no longer wait for a latent or cumulating threat to become “imminent” after the experience of 9/11 — because we might never know or know too late. That was the Bush Doctrine.

Obama’s defining 2002 IWR speech is here. It is a classic expression of neo-isolationism: we can go to war only after we’ve been attacked. No preëmption of latent threats before they are “imminent”. He even rejected humanitarian intervention as a rationale for the IWR or any war that was not in response to an “imminent” threat or a prior attack. His examples of “good” wars were all responses to being attacked: the U.S. Civil War (Fort Sumter); WWII (Pearl Harbor); Afghanistan (9/11).

This is standard left-wing ideology, post-Viet Nam and post-cold war: let things get as bad as they can be before doing anything (“imminent”) or wait for Pearl Harbor, then respond — with a police action like the Global War on just one guy (Osama bin Laden)! Anything else is a “war of choice”.

Some honest voices on the center-left have objected to the massive contradiction between Obama’s “war of choice” ideology and his plan for ISIL. See, for example, Conor Friederdorf’s scathing Atlantic article immediately after Obama’s speech. It is a devastating comparison of the rationale for attacking ISIL with the debate in 2002 on the Iraq War Resolution — and not a flattering one for Obama. The title and subtitle are beautiful:



Obama Urges War in Iraq Despite Known Lack of WMDs

The self-contradictory rhetoric of a shape-shifting president…
This summarizes the point:

Didn’t Hussein pose a bigger potential threat in 2002 than ISIS does now? “ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria and the broader Middle East, including American citizens, personnel, and facilities,” Obama said. “If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies.” Nearly all of that could’ve been truthfully said about Hussein.
Bush said it....
Even Andrew Sullivan, probably Obama’s most enthusiastic and consistent supporter over almost 10 years, has concluded that “Obama [is] repealing a core pillar of his candidacy and presidency….Congress has effectively abdicated its democratic responsibility – and Obama is happy about that.”

article goes on to list all the Senators and Reps that voted NO on Iraq War and Yes on ISIL war.

then finishes with this:

Here’s Robert Kuttner endorsing, albeit half-heartedly, Obama’s assumption of the Bush Doctrine because…not Bush, I guess. And here is The New Republic on how marvelously thoughtful and reflective Obama is about all this, totally not poll driven. Power Line has already reported on the flimflam and double talk from The New York Times and from E. J. Dionne. These examples could be multiplied indefinitely.

Obama’s ISIL speech is a direct repudiation of his opposition to the IWR in 2002. It is an implicit endorsement of the Bush Doctrine. Indeed, it is a direct repudiation of the basic rationale for his presidency from the beginning!

Yet there is little acknowledgement, let alone sense of shame, from the Dems, the left or the double-talking MSM. The only conclusion their cynicism, duplicity, and double-talking sophistry permits is that they are transparently partisan opportunists.

Agreed. He's far from being liberal or a socialist. He's pretty much identical to Bush.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saddam Hussein = Not a threat to the US and nothing to do with Al Qaeda

ISIS = International terrorists so crazy Al Qaeda (you know, the group that actually attacked the US) kicked them out.

HTH

Actually AQ & Zawahiri kicked them out because they would not obey orders directly given from the leadership. ISIL wanted to keep expanding and AQ told them to take it slow.

AQ did not kick them out because they were "crazy" or "too extreme even for them" as has been bandied about.

 

[The Commish]

Gotta love the "payback" Shrub lovers continue to engage in doing mental gymnastics to somehow compare Obama to W.

Good point. W never claimed the authority to execute US citizens without due process.

a stance, as I remember, that you also (incorrectly) support.

No, I don't. I get the argument, but there needs to be some kind of oversight for this sort of thing.

The more important point, though, is that people who see some kind of qualitative difference between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's foreign policy are mainly just deluding themselves.

Nothing Obama has done or will do compares to Bush's ill fated decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Saying that Obama's FP is virtually identical to GWB's is simply a way for you to feel better about yourself and your erroneous support for GWB's foreign policy back in the old yeller days IK.

I think posts like this are mainly just projection on the part of the speaker. I've openly supported many of Obama's national security decisions, such as unilateral drone strikes on foreign militants, his (reluctant) decision to keep Guantanamo open, and scrapping the idea of civilian trials for detainees. I disagree with Obama on some other issues, but it's not like I walk around criticizing the guy while standing up for Bush. I sincerely see him as basically the same thing, and I'm 100% confident that you would too if he was from the other party.

Perhaps. But I know you're far too intelligent to equate Obama's actions in Syria and Libya to Bush's invasion of Iraq, so there has to be some other motive. Citing Obama's inability to get Guantanamo closed is a red herring.

IK's comparison was at the policy level. He didn't compare two specific incidents.

Incidents largely define a president's foreign policy. The idea that we should compare the foreign policies of Presidents without noting their biggest and most impactful foreign policy decisions is odd.

I don't know how you avoid a broken back moving the goal posts all the time. I was simply pointing out what he said and what you were arguing weren't the same thing

 

[IvanKaramazov]

IIRC, Ivan for years now has generally agreed with my assessment of Obama's foreign policy as outstanding.

IK is one of the, if not THE most rational conservative voice on this board. But he's wrong saying that Obama's foreign policy is exactly like GWB's.

In fairness, he's probably still trying to find the answers to the Bills passing game in the bottom of a vodka bottle, so perhaps we should give him a pass.

I'm not saying it's "exactly" the same. I'm saying it's a lot more the same than it is different. I'm not even saying that that's necessarily bad or good, just that that's how it is.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Such a cop out to claim there are no differences between the two parties . Lazy, ignorant, and anti-intellectual.

that's true, other than a 3% difference in marginal tax rates for the top 5% of tax payers, republicans are really, really, really in the pockets of big business and the military industrial complex. Dems on the other hand are only really, really in the pockets of big business and the military industrial complex. That's like a one more really difference.

Saying somebody is pro business, including big business, is almost a meaningless statement- like saying they're pro-America . Heaven forbid we ever get a politician who is anti-big business. With regard to the military-industrial complex , yes both parties have been tied to it for the last 50 years, but that's because it's so key to employment.Both political parties ultimately gave similar desires but that's a good thing, because we are all American and extremism is disdained here. But there are significant differences: one of the most important is which issues to prioritize. Beyond that, the two parties have very distinct ideas about the powers of the states vs the federal government, the role of judges, the Constitution, how to handle education, the environment, immigration, the debt, taxes, social issues, etc.

I agree they have tons of rhetorical differences.

Governing and policy is the same no matter which party controls the legislature and executive branches. We have spent the last 14 years with various parties controlling various branches and the differences are small. A possible exception is ACA, although that was just a repackaged republican plan.

Agreed completely, and I posted the same sentiment about the ACA at the time. Theoretically people like me should be comparatively happy about the ACA because that was originally one of "our" ideas, but it got kicked to the curb when the other party picked it up (see also cap and trade).

 

[squistion]

Agreed. He's far from being liberal or a socialist. He's pretty much identical to Bush.

 

[The Commish]

IIRC, Ivan for years now has generally agreed with my assessment of Obama's foreign policy as outstanding.

IK is one of the, if not THE most rational conservative voice on this board. But he's wrong saying that Obama's foreign policy is exactly like GWB's.

In fairness, he's probably still trying to find the answers to the Bills passing game in the bottom of a vodka bottle, so perhaps we should give him a pass.

I'm not saying it's "exactly" the same. I'm saying it's a lot more the same than it is different. I'm not even saying that that's necessarily bad or good, just that that's how it is.

Looks like he's spreading this shtick. GL in figuring out how to reply to this stuff.

 

[tommyboy]

IIRC, Ivan for years now has generally agreed with my assessment of Obama's foreign policy as outstanding.

IK is one of the, if not THE most rational conservative voice on this board. But he's wrong saying that Obama's foreign policy is exactly like GWB's.

In fairness, he's probably still trying to find the answers to the Bills passing game in the bottom of a vodka bottle, so perhaps we should give him a pass.

I'm not saying it's "exactly" the same. I'm saying it's a lot more the same than it is different. I'm not even saying that that's necessarily bad or good, just that that's how it is.

Looks like he's spreading this shtick. GL in figuring out how to reply to this stuff.

yeah, most liberals have problems understanding "nuance"