Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 3,004 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,523,301
Pageviews Today: 1,985,736Threads Today: 481Posts Today: 7,584
11:48 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

HYPOCRISY: 2002 Obama Would Have Called Intervention In Syria "Dumb" and "Rash" (2002 Speech Included)

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 39951302
United States
09/06/2013 12:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
HYPOCRISY: 2002 Obama Would Have Called Intervention In Syria "Dumb" and "Rash" (2002 Speech Included)
siren2siren2

Please make this go viral!!

For the full post and to read Obama's 2002 speech see [link to www.camharris.us]

Excerpt:

"Eleven years, two elections, and a move to Pennsylvania Avenue later, Barack Obama has done a 180-degree turn on his criteria for when war is justified. Where once he criticized American military intervention in Iraq as “dumb” and “rash,” he has now placed us on the precipice of global military conflict because of what he believes he needs to do. It is safe to say that when applying Obama’s 2002 criteria for a justified war to the current situation in Syria, Senator Obama would not be in support.

Let’s flashback to October 2, 2002.

On October 2 of that year, President George W. Bush announced the introduction of the Joint Resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. On that very same day, then-Senator Barack Obama stood before a crowd in his home state of Illinois and delivered a rousing speech at an anti-war rally. In this speech, which I will excerpt below, Senator Obama railed against the Iraq War for various reasons.

The funny thing is, if you were to replace the word “Iraq” in Obama’s 2002 speech with “Syria” and “Saddam” with “Assad,” the very same speech could be given today, except for the President wouldn’t agree with the latter."
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 39951302
United States
09/06/2013 12:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HYPOCRISY: 2002 Obama Would Have Called Intervention In Syria "Dumb" and "Rash" (2002 Speech Included)
Excerpt continued:

"As I began to read through Senator Obama’s remarks on that October day in Chicago, I began to sneer at the irony. As I made my way further into the speech, the sneer became a laugh, and a laugh became an outburst of hilarity. Then I realized, nothing about this is funny. This hypocrite, this political opportunist, and this inexperienced, sorry excuse for a President has his finger on the trigger of the full force of the American military at a time when the majority of the world is telling us “No.”

Oh how things can change in just 11 years. How a trip from Capitol Hill to the White House gives one man the enlightenment to do a 180-degree turn on his stance on when exactly war is justified. How can a Senator go from calling a looming war in Iraq a “dumb” and “rash” war to unleashing the power of the presidential bully pulpit to magnify and enlarge a localized Syrian conflict? How can a Senator be so vociferously opposed to intervention backed by the UN and our allies, but so vehemently support intervention when our own allies are telling us they aren’t with us?"
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 39951302
United States
09/06/2013 12:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HYPOCRISY: 2002 Obama Would Have Called Intervention In Syria "Dumb" and "Rash" (2002 Speech Included)
Part of Obama's 2002 speech!! Look at how hypocritical this man is!!

“What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by…weekend warriors…to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt…to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to…A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors…I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 39951302
United States
09/06/2013 01:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HYPOCRISY: 2002 Obama Would Have Called Intervention In Syria "Dumb" and "Rash" (2002 Speech Included)
bump
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 39951302
United States
09/06/2013 03:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: HYPOCRISY: 2002 Obama Would Have Called Intervention In Syria "Dumb" and "Rash" (2002 Speech Included)
Nice find OP
bump

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!