Such is the case with Generalissimo Barack Obama, who relies on his extensive Military background and intricate knowledge of the constitution, when it seems to suit him as he outlined every thing former President George W. Bush did wrong in handling wars and his presidency.
Now that Generalissimo Barack Obama has launched America into a third war in the Middle East, with barely a peep from ardent anti-war activists who wanted to lynch president Bush for fighting back against radical Jihadists after over 2 decades of terrorist attacks against American interests at home and abroad, we can see just how, we can compare similar actions of two men. (Sorry, Obama is really just a mere man after all).
After the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, then President Bush was approached by officials from both major political parties demanding immediate and swift retaliation, where Bush was quoted as replying, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt."
As every president does, Bush relied on the Intelligence Community for whom to go after and when it was determined where the attacks originated from, approached congress, securing SJ Resolution 23 - Authorization for Use of Military Force on September 18, 2001 before launching the attack on October 7, 2001.
Relying on intelligence inherited from the previous administration and newly gathered intelligence, as well as the refusal of Iraq's Saddam Hussein to turn over known terrorists within his country and step down as leader of Iraq, President Bush approached congress with what he knew, seeking and securing H.J.Res. 114, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that he signed into law on October 16, 2002 before launching the attack on March 19, 2003.
Even though President Bush followed our constitution and acted accordingly, he was besieged by political opponents with claims that he fabricated intelligence, lied about intelligence, launched an "illegal war" and spent the rest of his presidency under vitriolic accusations.
Addressing constitutional authority to attack a sovereign nation in much the same way as did President Bush, the candidate and Senator Barack Obama replied to a Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power, "In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress," on Dec 20, 2007;
"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. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that 'any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress'."Although addressing the potential threat posed from Iran gaining nuclear weapons, it shows Obama's intricate knowledge of congressional issues and that even he would never just launch an attack on another nation without first seeking congressional approval.
Or so one would think.
On March 17, 2011, President Barack Obama seemingly welcomed news of a United Nations Resolution approving military action against Libya for Muammar Gaddafi attacking rebel forces in his country in their civil war.
On March 19, 2011, ignoring his own intricate knowledge and firm stance against how president Bush handled Afghanistan and Iraq, Barack Obama launched over 100 cruise missiles into Libya in a supposed International action, not unlike the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq that is destined to become a "virtually all-American war" due to America's "unique capability."
Several members of congress from both parties began speaking out as the military attacks were launched due to Obama's not following his own words to first seek congressional approval.
In the Des Moines Register Democratic debate held Dec 13, 2007, the question "Do you agree with the president’s assessment that Iran still poses a threat" was asked and candidate Obama replied, "It is absolutely clear that Pres. Bush continues to not let facts get in the way of his ideology. And that’s been the problem with the administration’s foreign policy generally."
I have yet to see a single "FACT" from the Obama Administration that Libya was any threat to the United States or where any congressional approval was even sought, much less secured before ordering the U.S. Military to launch a third war in the Middle East.
Nor do I see a large and loud outcry from those who readily took to the streets in opposition of President George W. Bush following the constitution in seeking congressional authority and who was hung in effigy, ridiculed, called a warmonger, accused of launching an illegal war and demanded to be impeached.
Maybe they simply forgot to program into the teleprompter his own words about first seeking congressional approval.