It must be great to be a Democrat. Never tied to facts. Never having to confront inconsistencies in your logic. Able to shift language to mean whatever you want. Able to ignore history…
I was listening to Michael Medved yesterday and a liberal came on the show and he was defending Obama as a good president. Medved brought up Reagan. The Dem replied something like: “Oh yeah… He was an actor. What did he know?”
Facts: Reagan was a leader of a major union and then Governor of one of our largest and richest states prior to becoming President. Yes, he was also an actor. This was in defense of a guy who was a community organizer, a state senator, and a U.S. Senator who served 1/3 of a term while running for President the entire time.
Then, the guy went on to put Reagan down for increasing the deficit. I kid you not. That was his big complaint about Reagan. Reagan was an actor who knew nothing and spent too much money. Being a Democrat, he didn’t have to confront the contradiction that he was using this formulation to be critical of Reagan while defending a community organizer who makes Reagan look like a piker when it comes to deficit spending. This is a guy who apparently is anti-deficit but who is also defending the Democrats! I can’t believe his head doesn’t explode from the enormity of the contradiction.
The examples abound. And I was going to go through more of them, but then the President himself handed me a gem.
In his speech about Libya, Pres. Obama said:
The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
Let’s parse that a bit. First, history tells us that Obama was against the war in Iraq, as were the majority of Democrats. Going to war to rid the world of the threat that was Saddam Hussein was useless at best, criminal at worst, the result of misleading the country about WMD, and utterly wrong because Saddam posed no threat to the United States. Remember that?
Yet, President Bush used almost the exact same formulation regarding the UN as Obama did, only Bush stood before the UN general assembly to make his point. He said (I paraphrase), “Either the UN’s resolutions mean something, or the UN itself is meaningless.” It was quite controversial at the time. Also at the time, there were some 16 UN resolutions, all of them violated by Saddam, and a cease fire agreement, also violated by Saddam.
By Obama’s logic in the quote above, Bush was right. Bush was righting a wrong that had been a wrong for many years. By Obama’s logic, we needed to go into Libya to avoid making the UN seem feckless. The logical extension of which is that we should have gone to war in Iraq much sooner, possibly even just finishing Saddam off in the first Gulf War under President George H. W. Bush.
So, by Obama’s “make sure the UN has credibility” logic, Bush was right in finally waging a war that Obama opposed (as did the majority of Democrats). Obama would not make the same mistake made by Bush 41 and Clinton and allow the UN to be a toothless tiger.
His formulation of the second paragraph, however, makes it sound like what Bush 43 did was wrong… And unnecessarily costly, given that the majority of lives lost and the monetary expense occurred only after Bush did what Obama proposes to do in Libya, which is to make sure the UN resolutions have teeth.
If you are able to remember facts, know your history, and follow logical conclusions, these Democrats are incredibly frustrating. It is clear that Obama is cut from the same cloth (and knows he’s speaking to others also cut from the same cloth) as that caller to the Medved show, and someone like Nancy Pelosi who can stand before a microphone with a straight face and declare that Democrats have been fiscally responsible.