As of this date, August 2013, I cannot confidently articulate the current goal of the Democrat/Liberal party. Forget the political analysis and the people on TV with their pretend crystal balls, and ask yourself, objectively, (some of us need to be reminded) what is the current goal of the Democrat/Liberal party? And if you don’t think that those two parties are the same, first ask yourself, “Why have so many Democrats supported Obama?”
If you already asked yourself the latter question, you probably came up with an answer along the lines of “I don’t know”. The important thing to note is that answering the question at all means you acknowledge they are one in the same. So, back to the original question, why do so many Democrats still stand behind this POTUS, who is inarguably the worst president in American history?
Let’s go back and think, “Why did Liberals despise George W. Bush so much?” He was a war criminal! Remember? He went into Iraq after oil and blamed it on Saddam Hussein to fight “his Daddy’s war”. Whoa now, not too many facts at once, please. The thing is, before we actually received permission from congress (what, you thought Bush went into Iraq on his own?) to go into Iraq, we had sent inspectors to Saddam’s military to check his arsenal of weapons for anything considered to be Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical, or simply, NBC. The UN also sent their own inspectors. But every time the US and UN inspectors were about to conduct a search, Saddam stalled and the inspectors had to come back another time without being able to look over anything with their chemical testers.
Meanwhile, our satellites caught military cargo trucks moving over the border to Syria. It was speculated that Saddam was moving WMDs to Syria.
Eventually, on October 16th, 2002, “The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.”
Up to this day, Democrats refuse to accept any responsibility, saying that it was “Bush’s war” and a ploy for oil. I haven’t seen any damn oil, but we do have Democrats on the record:
“Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.
‘I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent,’ said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.”
It honestly sounds like a good quote to stand behind, why abandon it?
Fast forward to today, and you will read that Syria is using chemical weapons on its own people. I hate to put two and two together here, but:
- Iraq had to have chemical weapons. Even if they were from the Gulf War, does that mean they are less deadly? Of course not.
- We have satellite images of military cargo trucks crossing the Iraq border into Syria back in 2002 and 2003.
Is there any way to find out if these chemical weapons in Syria are the ones Saddam might have been moving?
So the Left will say they are anti-war and humanitarians, fighting (legislatively) for human rights and we shouldn’t be involving ourselves in other country’s wars, and blah blah blah. But objectively analyze how this situation in Syria is any different than Bush and Iraq. Is it? Maybe you are saying that back in 2002/3 Saddam wasn’t actively using chemical weapons on his people. Maybe, maybe not. We can only speculate, but we do have satellite images of military trucks crossing the border into Syria and we do know Bush was trying to stop him (under UN resolutions), possibly stopping the very weapons that Syria is using today. So is it not humanitarian when a president tries to stop NBC/WMD weapons from being produced and transported into unstable countries? Is it humanitarian to do everything you preached against only a few years ago?
What is the current goal of Liberalism?