It’s Not Illegal If The President Does It

Obama Foreign Policy Since Libya is a hot button issue this presidential election, I thought it fit to discuss the Obama doctrine. President Obama has said time and time again that he is all for peace and stability, but what is his thought process behind this?

What doctrine is he using?

Is he really that consistent?

“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.”

Guess who said that and about what?

It was President Obama referring to Iraq.

Then there’s this…

“Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya.”

That would be a quote from Secretary Gates, three weeks before the no-fly zone was ordered.

What does this have to do with anything?

Libya. President Obama has used a power he claimed to not have to order forces into Libya. And the leftists that did not support Bush now support Obama claiming that he has “reluctantly” sent forces and “without zeal.”

My question is how does this make a difference?

Let’s look a little bit more at Obama’s statement. He went on to say that, “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.”

So, what threat does Libya pose? Well none really. They are not on the list of terror sponsoring states, they surrendered their WMD and we import far less than 1% of imports from them, including oil.

With a rebel uprising on the horizon, Gadhafi moved to put it down by any means.  Obama then said, “we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.”

How is this different from Iraq? “The butcher of Baghdad” (Saddam) ordered the brutal murders of over 100,000 of his own people. His means were criminal and a violation of U.N. agreements on human rights. He used chemical and biological weapons against his own citizens just because they believed something he did not. Oh, and there was the little mix up with Iran when he also used WMD.

Saddam was much more of a threat the United States than Libya is.

Saddam kicked out U.N. inspectors. He had used WMD before, all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies reported he had them and or the capability to produce WMD. Not to mention, France, the UK, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, China, Israel and an amount of Saddam’s general reported intelligence that he had WMD.

Don’t get me wrong. The United States has never (until the election of Obama) taken a back seat to world wide freedom. Libya is a mess and needs to be handled with a light touch. I would love to see a favorable outcome to the situation where maybe peace and stability can start to grow even further in the region.

After this analysis, I think we’ve defined the Obama Doctrine:  The president does not need approval – or a reason – to intervene into an armed conflict.

Unless the President is George Bush.


  1. What we need is a little gumption along with insurrection. No need to really negotiate while the President is out campaigning AFTER the election and as he dips deeper into our pockets. We need people in front of the White House, on Mall for him to realize that he will have a fight on his hands: that american citizens that don’t want to live in a third world welfare state are willing to impart their will and throw him out.

Speak Your Mind