Candidate Obama was a dove but President Obama is a hawk

Barack Obama: More of a war monger than people realized.

Barack Obama: More of a war monger than people realized.

As a candidate focused on his own election, Barack Obama championed restraint and global cooperation when faced with security threats.

Now, as commander in chief of a world superpower, his rhetoric of the past is being tested by the reality of today as he presses Congress to allow the United States to launch a military strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, over the objections of most major U.S. allies.

It’s a posture that conflicts with positions he took as a young senator, a 2008 presidential candidate and even a first-term president as he cast himself as a counterweight to the more aggressive approach to national security embodied by his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush.

The Democratic president long has advocated a U.S. foreign policy that prioritizes negotiation over confrontation, humility over diplomatic bravado and communal action over unilateralism.

Those positions are under question as Obama seeks the approval of Congress back home and as he meets with skeptical world leaders abroad while at the G-20 summit in Russia this week.

A look at some of Obama’s historical and recent comments on the use of America’s military might:

ON CONGRESS

THEN: “In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.” — Response to candidate questionnaire from The Boston Globe, December 2007.

NOW: “As commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security. I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress. But I did not take this to Congress just because it’s an empty exercise. I think it’s important to have Congress’ support on it.” — News conference in Stockholm, Sept. 4, 2013.

ON ACTING ALONE

THEN: “In a world in which threats are more diffuse and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace.” — Speech accepting Nobel Peace Prize, December 2009.

NOW: “I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable.” — Remarks in the White House Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013.

ON APPETITE FOR WAR

THEN: “It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward, to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path.” — Speech in Cairo, June 2009.

NOW: “The American people, understandably, want us to be focused on the business of rebuilding our economy here and putting people back to work. And I assure you, nobody ends up being more war-weary than me. But what I also believe is that part of our obligation as a leader in the world is making sure that when you have a regime that is willing to use weapons that are prohibited by international norms on their own people, including children, that they are held to account.” — Remarks at meeting with Baltic leaders, Aug. 30, 2013.

ON JUSTIFICATION

THEN: “We may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake. If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in? … And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.” — Presidential debate, October 2008.

NOW: “This kind of attack is a challenge to the world. We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale. This kind of attack threatens our national security interests by violating well-established international norms against the use of chemical weapons. … If we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, ‘Stop doing this,’ that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term.” — Remarks at meeting with Baltic leaders, Aug. 30, 2013.

___

Follow Josh Lederman on Twitter at http://twitter.com/joshledermanAP
___

Copyright  © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright  © 2013 Capitol Hill Blue

Enhanced by Zemanta

2 Responses to "Candidate Obama was a dove but President Obama is a hawk"

  1. Carl Nemo **==  September 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    What should be expect?

    This President has been a ‘shapeshifter’ since ascending to the office.

    Generally we expect non delivery on most campaign trail promises, but this President once a candidate is a glaring example of stating one thing on the trial then turning into a complete disappointment while in office.

    He has the power of his veto pen in order to provide guidance for Congress, but invariably signs off on all legislation that in the end somehow bites “We the People in the butt bigtime.

    He’s also in the habit of creating executive orders as if he were a publishing company for such documents.

    This president is a globalist shill and is following a script proffered by his bankster/corporate controllers.

    He’ not a man of the people…never was, never will be.

    Carl Nemo **==

    • Keith  September 5, 2013 at 8:17 pm

      This president is a globalist shill and is following a script proffered by his bankster/corporate controllers.

      Perhaps.

      But, I’m more inclined to believe that the “script” (as you call it) is being written by none other than the Government of Israel.

      Any way you cut it, Syria is a third rate military power…if that. And they pose absolutely ZERO threat to the United States or its strategic interests.

      So, as I see it, the only “national threat” (as Mr. Obama is now calling it) that the Syrian regime poses is a threat to Mr. Obama’s own credibility as a national leader.

      He’s foolishly drawn multiple “lines in the sand”, all of which Mr. Assad has since (gleefully) crossed. The Russians are now (rightly) calling the entire Obama administration a “pack of liars”, which, from my perspective isn’t that far from the truth.

      So, as I begin to wonder how Mr. Obama could be this politically stupid with his US Foreign Policy forces me to consider that there’s probably another (hidden) agenda in all this.

      Could it be that all of this war-mongering nonsense now being directed at Syria is being driven by the Government of Israel’s orgasmic desire for “regime change” in Syria so as to keep the Arab world in the Middle East in a constant state of political turmoil?

      That is, when the rest of the Arab world in the Middle East is in turmoil (as this game might go) Israel’s “national security” remains intact.

      so far at least, that strategy seems to have worked beautifully with Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Libya all now in a continual state of turmoil, with most of it directly caused (or sanctioned) by none other than the United States of America.

      Also, am I the only one who has yet to see any definitive evidence that it was, in fact, the Syrian Army that launched the attack? Admittedly, the evidence seems pretty certain that chemicals were used. But, so far at least, there’s still no proof of WHO actually did it.

      In fact, if my hunch is correct, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was eventually found that either the US (or the Israeli Government) actually had a hand in the recent chemical attack on Syrian civilians.

      Indeed, when you think about it, such an attack could have easily been accomplished either by supplying the so-called “rebels” with the toxin, or by the Israelis perpetrating the attack directly using their own special forces…the Mossad

      And, again, this all could simply be part of an overall plan to keep the Arab world in political turmoil so as to keep Israel “safe”.

      The bottom line here is that this whole chemical weapons attack “brouhaha” is starting to smack of yet ANOTHER “wag the dog” media circus that looks for all the world like yet another “secret” attempt to continue propping up the Government of Israel.

Comments are closed.