Rush Limbaugh has this pronounced tendency -- annoying to liberals, endearing to conservatives -- of remembering things from long ago that left wingers would prefer remain forgotten, thanks very much.
El Rushbo did this yet again on his radio show in response to the startling news that President Obama ordered military strikes in Iraq, after maintaining for more than a decade that American military actions there served no useful purpose whatsoever and accomplished nothing except to recruit countless more jihadists. (Audio after the jump)
October 2002, Barack Obama, B. Hussein O., makes a speech, accuses George W. Bush of wanting to invade Iraq to distract us from a bad economy. We had not gone into Iraq yet, that happened in 2003. Bush was out trying to marshal all kinds of support for it. I mean, he spent a year and a half making speeches, sending Colin Powell to the UN, they spent a lot of time putting together a massive coalition for this and dredging up public opinion support for it. He just didn't do this, Bush didn't, willy-nilly overnight. But Obama was out there in 2002 and this is how he came to be known. This is how he first achieved national attention and he never voted for the Iraq war, so he had some credibility with the Democrats 'cause all the rest of them did!
I don't want to review this whole thing 'cause I've done it so many times but there were two votes on the use of force authorization that Bush asked for, and the first one, none of the Democrats voted for it. Then they saw a public opinion poll on it and they demanded a revote. Bush did not have to have the Republicans resubmit it, but he did, because he wanted the Democrats on record supporting it so that a unified country would appear to be the case. It made sense in that way. I mean, why go to war with all the Democrats opposing it? They asked for a second vote after they saw public opinion and Bush granted the second vote so we could create the, turns out, the illusion of national unity on the use of force in Iraq.
So, Obama was one of the holdouts, he didn't vote for it, made a speech before it even happened, condemning it, that Bush was just dredging it up as a distraction. He makes a speech at Democrat convention 2004, called it a dumb war, continued with that theme, and now look where we are. Would it be too cynical to suggest that Obama might be bombing Iraq to distract us from some of his numerous problems? I mean, we've got an immigration disaster taking place. Our economy is a disaster. Obamacare is a disaster. ...
But would it be cynical to suggest that maybe Obama's bombing here to distract everybody? Think of how bad things must be for Obama if he thinks his best PR move at this point is to ratchet up the war in Iraq.
So what was it Obama said in 2002 while he was an Illinois state senator about potential war in Iraq? National Public Radio posted a transcript of Obama's speech. After repeatedly claiming he didn't "oppose all wars," Obama said what he believed was the unstated rationale for military intervention in Iraq --
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 Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair weekend warriors in this administration to shove their ideological agenda down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove 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.
Using Obama's own words against him -- yet more evidence of racism from the right.
Some may consider it a "dumb" idea to wage war against ISIS -- and that's what it's called after the bombs start flying -- while simultaneously reassuring these depraved monsters that Americans don't have the stomach for a drawn-out conflict.
