Skip to content

(Thankfully) President Obama Is Not President Bush

August 30, 2013

Many years ago I wrote that one of the disastrous side-effects of President Bush barging his way into war with Iraq was the doubt he would create for military missions when real needs occurred in the world.  Such is the case with Syria needing to feel the world community wrath for using chemical weapons on their own people.

Over this past week many have tried to link President Obama with that of the failed leadership of President Bush.  How anyone can compare the two men is laughable.

Many are suggesting that the world is not fully aware of the real facts regarding the chemical weapons that were used, and that once again the government is ginning up events to force a military strike.  If anyone has been awake for even a small portion of the first term of President Obama a few things are most clear.

Obama is not one to swagger and bluster.  He is intellectual and reasoned in all discussions.  He delves into issues and comes to grips with them.  He struggles to fashion policy that considers all the ramifications, as far as anyone can see them.  President Obama is the exact opposite of President Bush.

No one likes having to use the military for a strike such as that which is being talked about this week.  But there are times when military assets are needed to be employed to balance the world, right wrongs, and send a clear and unambiguous message to the one on the receiving end.

The facts with Syria are solid.  Syrian officials prepared for chemical weapons use for three days before the August 21 attack, and their rockets were launched from areas controlled by the Syrian regime and landed in areas controlled by the opposition or contested.  There is no doubt to what happened!

President Bush lied his way into war with Iraq because neo-conservatives had a firm control over his administration.  Bush was not intellectually capable to reason his way beyond their grasp, and we are paying for that today with the cloud of suspicion over U.S. policy in Syria.

I have always placed my interests with the smart ones.  As such I stand with President Obama and the world community who understand that using chemical arms is considered a war crime and banned under international treaties, including the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Geneva Protocol and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. September 2, 2013 1:04 PM

    There is no public moment you can point to that shows a swagger to Obama, Most will show him to be cool and calm and collected. Listen to any topic that provides an answer to and it comes out in point and sub-points. His intellect is without question.

    Consider how Bush spoke, operated, and thought and you have the very reason I wrote what I did.

    Careful and calm reflection is the only way to describe Obama.

    While I very much like him and his policy paths I also want more action from him on a host of issues. I wanted a more strident policy in Syria a year ago. I wanted him to move on gay marriage long before he did so. I wanted a more constrained policy on Russia. But I also know we need Russia to play ball on a host of issues, and that Syria is no Libya when it comes to internal politics. I get to blog and opine but Obama needs to lead a nation.

    I stand by what I wrote in my post, but thank you for commenting..

  2. tom permalink
    September 2, 2013 12:39 PM

    “Obama is not one to swagger and bluster. He is intellectual and reasoned in all discussions. He delves into issues and comes to grips with them. He struggles to fashion policy that considers all the ramifications, as far as anyone can see them. President Obama is the exact opposite of President Bush.” This is complete speculation without any factual evidence. Neither you nor I has any real insight into this president’s decision making process. You like Obama so you attribute to him qualities you imagine are favorable. In reality, there is no evidence Bush was any less deliberative than Obama. Hindsight might allow us to claim this or that decision was unwise, obviously.

    I imagine that the president is troubled because he declared chemical weapons a “red line,” and now he is compelled to take some action which is unlikely to achieve much. Since the Noble Peace Prize winner has taken so long to take action, we have to wonder why? Hesitation does not suggest strength or resolve. It seems easy to come to the conclusion based on available evidence such as statements that strikes would be limited in scope and short in duration that the President would rather do nothing.

    Its also troubling that the world’s most beloved politician can’t get even the British to go along here. This is remarkable since Obama has worked so hard to restore the world’s trust in America. I mean, if Obama has decided that attacking Syria is warranted because 1 in 1000 innocents who have died in the conflict between two morally suspect groups were killed by a particular weapon system, then the rest of the world should do as told.

  3. Man MKE permalink
    August 30, 2013 1:27 PM

    Exactly right. If, today, a civil war was producing atrocities against civilians in Bosnia, and if the president was Bill Clinton, a broad swatch of media pundits and even liberals would be warning against NATO air strikes. And all thanks to Bushism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 151 other followers

%d bloggers like this: