Obama's Wars

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” - Obama 2007 Boston Globe

Interestingly enough this week Obama attacked Libya without the authorization of Congress.

When Bush presented evidence that turned out to be incorrect for his justification to attack Iraq Democrats chanted Bush lied people died, yet here Obama has presented no evidence at all showing Libya to be a threat to us in any way.

In the case of the "collation" that supported Libya they are entirely made up of the countries that received large amounts of oil from Libya, with the exception being the US, and shockingly the Democrats who cried blood for oil over Iraq seem silent that the countries benefiting the most are the ones chanting for us to charge in.

When Bush attacked Iraq he was blasted by the left because it put us in a position of paying for 2 wars, both wars are still going on, despite Obama's changing the terms of those in Iraq from war time troops to "peace keeping troops".  Libya would be our 3rd ongoing conflict.

Bush was blasted for not have a clear exit strategy for Iraq.  Obama is now finding himself holding that same bag with Libya claiming he plans to hand over operations to other members of the UN but all other countries are looking around saying "no us".

When Bush was President the media continually ran death totals showing how many troops died in combat, August 17th, 2010 the number of US military troops to die in Afghanistan under President Obama passed the number that died while Bush was in charge.  So far there has been no mention of that in the media.

And don't even get me started on how the left pointed to Bush's wars and claimed they were the reason for all the national debt related problems we see today.  Do we have a buy 2 get one free deal going on wars?

How can the left continue to be quiet and act like everything they railed against Bush for is somehow different now?

One of the few voices of consistency I've found is Cindy Sheehan.  Here is an excerpt from her blog:

When the UN first announced its intervention in Libya, we were assured the United States wouldn't be in the forefront of military action.  The US would largely act as a supplier and facilitator for the "broad-based coalition" arrayed against Libya.  It took less than two days to give lie to this.  On Saturday, just after the French - with extensive oil interest in Libya - jumped the gun on the UN coalition and started attacking Libyan ground forces, the United States joined in with a missile attack on Libyan cities.  What wonderful cooperation, eh?  Not a few missiles; not 10 or 30 or 50 missiles - but a barrage of 110 Tomahawk missiles, targeting Tripoli and Misurata.  What were you thinking, Preznit Change-O?  Anyway, the game is now afoot.  You have drawn first blood from Libya, which now becomes the sixth (at least) Muslim nation in which you have launched deadly military actions, joining Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.