Those Bloodthirsty Democrat Warmongers

Obama makes George W. Bush look like a man of peace and good judgment.

Conservatives have been playing "what if that crook was in the other party?" for a long time, and to no good effect.  It might be amusing to imagine the media firestorm that would incinerate any Republican politician caught sending pictures of his weiner as was Anthony Weiner (D, NY), or serially abusing women in his employ, his constituency, or within the length of his arm as was San Diego Mayor Filner (D, of course).  That doesn't even touch out-and-out thieves and tax-frauds like Charlie Rangel (D, NY - must be something in the water there).

Those are low crimes and misdemeanors.  What about "high" crimes that result in actual deaths - like, say, going to war in a foreign country that hasn't attacked us?

You might think we were talking about Iraq, which earned George W. Bush the sobriquet "Worst President Ever."   But no - America is about to do almost exactly the same thing, except in Syria.  Our President has decided that Syria deserves a few of the best, and so it shall be.

Barack Lied, Thousands Died?

Actually, comparing Iraq and Syria is not entirely fair.  Let's consider a few of the differences:

  • Iraq had oil.  We've done a pretty incompetent job of stealing it; the old slogan of "No Blood for Oil" ought to be replaced by "No Oil for Blood."  The fact remains, however, Iraq did have oil, we did need it, and providing a steady supply of cheap energy is a legitimate goal for any world power whether you like it or not.  What's Syria got that makes it worth even one single American life - or for that matter, one single American cent borrowed from the Chinese?  Nuttin'.
  • Iraq had, technically, engaged in acts of war against us and our allies.  They weren't particularly successful - Saddam Hussein's intelligence service tried and failed to assassinate George Bush senior in Kuwait, and he fired Scud missiles at Israel with whom we have a defense treaty but didn't hit anything in particular.  Assassination attempts and missile attacks are acts of war under international law and have been for a long time.  What's Syria done to us?  Nuttin'.
  • Bashir Assad, it is reported, has used chemical weapons against his own people.  Saddam Hussein had done the same.  Except - why would Assad use gas, when he was already winning the war, albeit slowly, and we'd already said that might cause us to get involved?  Given that the rebels fighting against him are mostly Islamic terrorists even more evil than he, it certainly seems possible that they gassed their own people themselves to make Assad look worse than he actually is, and to con our air force into fighting on al-Qaeda's side.  Saddam never tried anything that sneaky.
  • Despite the constant false description of him as a lone wolf, George W. Bush invaded Iraq with the support of forty-nine countries, which he called the "coalition of the willing."  Yes, they didn't all send troops (maybe a half-dozen did, and a few more sent non-combat support teams).  Yes, he didn't have a UN resolution authorizing force, but he certainly wasn't by himself.
    Obama has, what, two allies, England and France?  And last reports are that they're both starting to go wobbly, as Margaret Thatcher would say.  So, what we have is Bush going to war alone with 49 other countries, and Obama acting with the global support of... his august self.  That's a bit rich even for the terminally biased media.
  • When Bush invaded Iraq, he had an easily explained and rational goal: get rid of Saddam Hussein.  Our troops proceeded to accomplish their assigned mission in double-quick time.  Anyone can argue about whether that was an objective worth the price we paid, but nobody can claim it was a bad or impossible goal: Saddam Hussein was one evil dude and the world is a better place without him in it.
    Bashar Assad is clearly a pretty nasty piece of work also, and if Mr. Obama had set getting rid of him as a goal we'd have at least a bit of sympathy - though we'd still think the game isn't worth the candle.  But no - Mr. Obama has explicitly said that he's not trying to rid the world of Assad!  What, therefore, is the point?
  • From the early days of his presidency, George W. Bush proclaimed that it was time for democracy to come to the Middle East.  We weren't sure about this at the time, and as the years have passed, it's become increasingly clear that democracy makes things worse in countries whose cultures aren't ready for it.  "Spreading democracy" was at least a noble goal even if it failed miserably.
    Mr. Obama has no such excuse: George W. Bush already tried that and, thanks to our Democrat media, everyone in the whole world right down to the unreached tribes in the Amazon knows it to have been a miserable failure.  Why on earth is Mr. Obama trying the same thing when we know perfectly well that any new "freely elected" leader will be yet another murderous Islamic terrorist who hates us even more than Assad and his goons?
  • Before George W. Bush's army set foot across the Iraq border, the President was careful to get authorization from Congress.  You can argue that Congress was fooled or lied to, but the fact remains that the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of war, including large numbers of Democrat luminaries such as Hillary Clinton.
    Mr. Obama has made it plain he doesn't think it's necessary to ask for Congressional support.  That's probably just as well: polls say a mere 9% of Americans support us going to war in Syria, which is one-third the support of the Vietnam War at its lowest.  Last week, he was all for starting the war over the Labor Day weekend.  Maybe he read the articles by lefty publications saying that's an impeachable offense; he seems to have decided that getting permission from Congress isn't a bad idea after all, while not promising to abide by a "no" vote anyway.

So let's review: In every way that matters, Mr. Obama's war in Syria has less authorization than Mr. Bush's Iraq war, less justification, less relevance to American interests, and a lower probability of success - indeed, Mr. Obama hasn't even attempted to describe what "success" would look like.

At the very best, after Mr. Obama chucks a few bombs at the place, Syria will end up being ruled by an evil, bloodthirsty tyrant just like most of the Middle East has always been, except not quite so evil as to kill his people with chemical weapons.  He'll machine-gun them instead.  Victory is ours!

Tell me again why the far-lefties, Code Pinkos, mainstream media, and every politician from dogcatcher on up isn't howling for his impeachment for even floating the idea of starting yet another lone-wolf war?  Oh, that's right: He's got a "D" after his name.  That makes it all OK.

Read other articles by Hobbes or other articles on Foreign Affairs.
Reader Comments

Great breakdown between the two. I had not considered some of those.

September 3, 2013 12:25 PM

So the question is how will the media come to obama's defense? It's a foregone conclusion that they will rally around the first golfer because if they don't, what are the consequences? Would they admit that they were wrong? Highly unlikely. And besides that it might pave the way for a republican landslide in '14 and Joker Joe would be an after thought in '16. It should be interesting to see what they say about this latest debacle.

September 3, 2013 12:50 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...