There’s been a lot of talk about how Obama has flipped on a host of positions in order to justify the Libyan war. Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s fact-checker, has bequeathed to Obama the first ever “Upside Down Pinocchio” in honor of the administration’s staggering reversals. But Kessler leaves off a major switch (a switch for the better, I might add).
During the campaign, Obama was asked by the AP about claims that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would result in potentially genocidal mass killings and ethnic cleansing. He responded:
“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.
Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it’s likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.
“Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis,” Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. “There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”
The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.
“It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions,” he said.
As I wrote at the time,
It’s worth pointing out a key difference between the potential genocide in Iraq and the heart-wrenching slaughters in Congo and Sudan: The latter aren’t our fault. But if genocide unfolds in Iraq after American troops depart, it would be hard to argue that we weren’t at least partly to blame. Yes, the mass murder would have more immediate authors than the United States of America, but we would undeniably be responsible, at least in part, for giving a green light to genocide. Obama offers precisely that green light in his proposed Iraq War De-escalation Act.
So, as a candidate, the current president took a principled stand for non-interventionism when it comes to genocide in places like Congo and Sudan. He even took a principled stand in favor of affirmative steps by the U.S. military to facilitate genocide in Iraq. I think those positions range from needlessly hardhearted to plain awful, particularly for a liberal. So I am glad Obama has flipped positions on genocide.
What is amazing to me is not that so many liberals support Obama as he intervenes in Libya today, but that so few had any problem with Obama coming out for doing nothing in the face of American-facilitated mass-murder back then.
When you accept they have absolutely no principles Jonah, other than winning power, it is pretty easy to understand what is going on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama's "No new taxes" moment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Flip" is far too kind of a word. Is there a word in the dictionary that means "betray your stated core principles"? Despite his attempts to make Libya look different by tearing down his predecessors, the American invasion of Libya (from the air) has put to lie every single solitary Middle East foreign policy criticism of Bush 43. All he needs do now is invite Bush to the White House along with Ben Bernake and Hank Paulson to give them the Medal of Freedom for their actions to stem the 2008 financial catastrophe.
And to cover this betrayal of "principle" up? He lied rather blatantly to the American people. The WH knows full-well that a lot of Americans will look at "NATO control" and a Canadian General and say "America is not in the lead". That is flatly untrue. Soon, we will learn of a NATO "Peacekeeping force" being sent to Libya. Of course, they will not engage in offensive operations, and there are to deliver food and medical supplies. "NATO decided to do this, and we're just being good allies" he'll say.
Taking all of this into consideration, the only principle of concern to Barack Obama is the principle of re-election. All other policy matters are subject to the whim and fancy of public opinion. Maybe deceitful is the right word for Obama and the Democrats over 8 years. Maybe treacherous. I'm not sure what the right word is, but I'm pretty sure the ends do not justify the means.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhatever happened to that old lefty maxim that "al-qaeda
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewill use this as a recruitment tool". They just flush their old bs down the toilet and start anew.Fresh canvas.
People stick with their sides. Is this any different than Republicans sticking with Bush as they increased debt enormously? ...engaged in nation building, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou neglected to mention that Obama's entire campaign for the presidency was a "help is on the way" shout out to the car bombers in Iraq.
He could care less about Libyans, Iraqis, or Congolese. That goes for Hillary too.
Look for the effects of this incursion in Libya as they fall out, near and long term.
He was still talking "Arab Spring" last night also, as if the facebook/twitter revolution of the wonderful youth hadn't already fallen into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. I guess that neither he nor Bill Kristol read the Times, which would ordinarily be a check in the plus column. But every once in a while it does report something off-agenda.
Now we're providing air cover for the bold "rebels" in Libya, who remain unidentified, except that we already know who they are and who among them is likely to prevail in the next regime.
But, anyway, let's make sure that we "get Qaddafi!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Joe is nearly correct when he says they "have absolutely no principles." They do have one principle--acquire power and then use it to control the populace! Other than that small exception, Mr. Joe is correct in that they have no principles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut wait: if you DIDN'T like him as a candidate, then why are you not happy that he's flipped? If you are equally unhappy with him over diametrically opposed positions, you are as big a flipper as he is (although no one flips as rapidly on this as Newt).
If Obama's totally changed his position, you have to like one of them. That's why conservatives are kind of turning in circles on this. Liberals opposition ot the Libyan War makes sense...conservatives are turning thems
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"So I am glad Obama has flipped positions on genocide."
No Jonah, all he's done is revoke the Pottery Barn rule. If we break it, we don't HAVE to buy it.
After all, he tells us the Libya operation won't be like Iraq, with that bloody 8-year, trillion-dollar occupation.
Of course, that occupation-- led by 150,000 American soldiers *on the ground*-- is all that stood between genocide and stability.
What will stand between either a victorious Qadaffi, or a vengeful victorious "rebel" government? Do we honestly the the Libyans will be magnanimous in victory? If not, what's to prevent Somalia on the Med *after* we, ummmm, "win"?
Someone should ask Gen. Shinseki what he thinks of Obama's strategy. Or is he only a credible witness against Donald Rumsfeld?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy favorite quote: "To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq."
Because we never went down the wait for international consensus and leave the dictator in power road in Iraq.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"So, as a candidate, the current president took a principled stand for non-interventionism when it comes to genocide in places like Congo and Sudan.... What is amazing to me is not that so many liberals support Obama as he intervenes in Libya today, but that so few had any problem with Obama coming out for doing nothing in the face of American-facilitated (murder) back then."
Maybe they're racists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@RiotLibrarian: If the entirety of Jonah's post doesn't reveal to you that he hasn't flipped -- that, in fact, he agrees with President Obama on the same issue on which he disagreed with Candidate Obama -- just read the part where he writes that this flip is a "switch for the better." It's a clue.
@tiredturtle: Yeah, that bit about lefties having no principles except acquiring power is kind of exactly what Mr. Joe said. I'm sure he's grateful for the, uh, "correction," though.
Feel free to try again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Riot
I usually see eye to eye with you around here but I disagree in this case. I was and am a supporter of our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I see no reason why I have to support this war. Those wars at least had the pretext of being in America's interests. Afghanistan was a staging ground for attacks on our people and Iraq was thought to have WMD's which posed a direct threat to us and less importantly, our allies.
Q is not a threat to anyone outside of his country and has not let his country be used as a breeding ground for terrorists since the 80s. We should pledge our full support to European efforts but I don't understand why we have to get involved. We've got our own problems.
As to criticizing the President and liberals on this war, weren't they the ones wagging their fingers at us for doing AQ recruitment for them? That American efforts to help in the Middle East always turned out badly. That the Middle East wasn't ever going to embrace Democracy? All the criticisms they made then have been tossed aside in a rush to join this European adventure.
If it were up to me, Id say good luck and God bless, but leave us out of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejprev40: If you think Republican's "stuck" with Bush when he was increasing the deficit, you were on a different planet than the rest of us. Conservatives were all over Bush during that period. They only "stuck" with Bush to the extent that they did because the Democrats were demanding even higher spending than Bush was requesting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRiotLibrarian: Are you honestly trying to claim that if a person likes one position that Obama takes, they must like Obama?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause we never went down the wait for international consensus and leave the dictator in power road in Iraq.
--------
We did with Bush the Elder, but that isn't the Bush Obama was criticizing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIronic
With Bush, we're colonialists. With Obama, we're firefighters to the rescue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid you guys see the comments from liberal WaPo readers? Jeez, a centrifuge doesn't spin this much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Left already proved with Guantanamo and the doubling down on the Afghan War that all they cared about was having their guy in power. All that talk about Bush "shredding the constitution" was just cheap electioneering propaganda. Now that Obama has adopted the Bush policies as his own, it's all okay.
What's a bit galling is that these same unprincipled left wing hacks keep insisting that conservatives would be in full support of the clusterfark Libya war if only someone other than Obama had launched it. That is a fact-free assertion, one which is based on total unfamiliarity with the arguments on the political right in recent years.
It also seems to assume that John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Bill Kristol broadly represent conservative opinion on foreign policy, which is laughable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt becomes less amazing when you remember that the vast preponderance of the left wouldn't know a principle if it took off all its clothes and marched in the Gay Pride parade. They were determined to advocate against anything GWB was doing, even those things that were just a result of basic decency and responsibility. You also, alas, err in assuming that their stance now is principled. It isn't. It is only a result of their determination to agree with The One Who Makes Women Faint Just By Speechifying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse