It takes a certain personality to use the term “dumb” referring to the opposition; a person who feels intellectually and morally superior. But that’s the term Senator Obama used about the Iraq war. That was while he was saying that we could not win that war. That was while he said the surge would not work. That was before Bush won and Obama took credit for it.
Cal Thomas paraphrases the “dumb war” speech that Obama gave and tell me if it does not sound timely:
[I, Barack Obama am not] “opposed to all war,” only “dumb war, rash war.”
“I suffer no illusions about Moammar Gadhafi. 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. … He’s a bad guy. The world and the Libyan people would be better off without him.”
“Gadhafi poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors … the Libyan economy is in shambles … the Libyan military is a fraction of its former strength and … in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”
So why are we engaged in a dumb, rash war with a country that is no direct threat to the United States? If we only wait the passage of time will consign K.Daffy to the dustbin of history.
Humanitarian reasons? You must have a short memory if you bring out this old chestnut. Read Obama again about that “brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.” Saddam Hussein butchered more of his own people, and his neighbors, than K. Daffy could ever hope to.
Don’t you hate it when your own words come back to bite you in the ass?