Saturday, June 18, 2011

A rose by any other name smells just as shitty

In one of my early posts on CFGM, I half ass supported Obama’s decision to help out with Libya.  In an attempt at a play on words with a popular phrase from the American Revolution, I titled the article “Libya Free or Die!”

Although I still believe that helping a people throw off an oppressive government for the sake of having a more democratic one is an admirable pursuit, and although I questioned before whether or not Obama clearly violated the War Powers Act of 1973, I think that now is the time to reflect on the absolute bullshit coming from this whole damn thing.

What I’m confused by is how Liberals continue to say that the Iraq war was “illegal,” but they get quiet whenever anyone brings up Libya.

Why am I confused?  Well, for starters, Bush sought congressional approval before tearing into Saddam’s despot paradise; Obama didn’t.  Congress passed resolutions authorizing the continuation of the Iraq War; congress has not done so for Libya.  Bush made reports to congress on the progress of the war and the goals; Obama has actually refused to do so.

So how is Obama any better than Bush?  I know, I know.  “Bush is evil!”  “Bush was just getting back at Saddam for trying to kill his daddy!”  “Bush wants to get his greedy hands on all their precious oil!”  Knowing that all of those assertions are baseless and false, I’m still at a loss as to how Obama and Bush are any different in this regard.

Are they different because Bush was all about regime change?  Nope, because Obama said that he fully supports regime change in his speech on our Middle East policy.  Are they different because Bush says to hell with the Constitution and Obama follows it to the letter?  Nope, because we all know that Obama has clearly overstepped his Constitutional bounds.  Is Obama different from Bush because Bush ran up the budget deficit?  No, again.

My question to liberals is why do you kid yourselves?  Why do you ignore the similarity between Obama’s transgressions and Bush’s?  Why do you lambaste Bush for following the rules, but stay silent when Obama outright pisses on the rules?

Not all liberals ignore the hypocrisy.  The ones that call themselves Progressives are usually the loudest voices of opposition to Obama’s policies in the Democrat Party.  But there are enough Democrats staying silent, or shying away from debate, whenever words like “Libya,” or “Guantanamo Bay,” or “Afghanistan Troop Surge,” are mentioned for me to condemn the party as a whole.

And don’t give me the “lesser evil,” bullshit line.  Obama turned out to be just like every other fucking politician out there, and you’re too afraid to admit it.  You’re too afraid to come to terms with the fact that he built up so much sentiment about hope and change only to dash it within a few short years.  Partisan hackery runs so deep that you’re willing to keep silent on the failures of your team.

So I’m sorry that Obama wasn’t the beacon of hope and change that you all thought he would be.  Perhaps you will remember this lesson the next time you’re regaled and seduced by the promises of politicians.  They’re all the same, especially the ones that say they aren’t.

5 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

You've lain your finger on the problem with personality-based politics, which smart people like you avoid.

If you stake your position on a person instead of principle, you end up in a indefensible position.

Harrison said...

Obama is actually worse than a bad politician if only because he does what he decried in others and his "moral high ground" is more like a moral speed bump on the way to hypocrisy.

Seremzh said...

"Same shit, different party." That is all I can see about the two parties. Well, okay, there is "Say one thing, do another," for being the modus operandi of most politicians regardless of ideology.

Dennis Carr said...

Are you always so understating of facts, or just this one time.......LOL...

Jack Camwell said...

Thank you for reading Dennis but please, enlighten me.