What Would Obama Do? Part II

In his “major speech on Iraq” last week Senator Obama, for the thousandth time, boasted that he was opposed to the Iraq operation form the beginning because,

  1. “…there was no hard evidence that Iraq had those stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, [and]
  2. “There was not any evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11, or that Iraq had operational ties to the al Qaeda terrorists who carried them out.”

The first post in this series dealt with #1, the WMD issue.

Today we look at the second reason Obama claims he opposed the Iraq operation. Here, Obama deliberately attempts to deceive with a straw man argument that misrepresents the reasons Congress authorized the President to use force to depose Saddam and strive to create a friendly democracy in Iraq.

First, The Bush Administration never claimed Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11. Second, Al Qaeda is only one of numerous, perhaps hundreds, of Islamicist inspired terrorist organizations around the world, including Al Qaeda cells that are not under bin Laden’s direct control and were not involved in the 9-11 attacks. They all represent potential threats to American security and safety.

Congress recognized the broader threat from other Islamic Terrorists immediately after 9-11, when a high priority was to make sure no other terrorist organization could succeed with another attack. Seven days after 9-11 the President signed into law a joint Congressional Resolution, that included the following language:

IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


Based on this resolution dozens of military and covert operations have been initiated against terrorists in scores of nations.

In their simplistic statements about Iraq and the larger war on terror Senators Obama and Clinton appear not to be serious candidates for the Presidency. If The President is to uphold his duty as Commander-in-Chief to prevent more attacks on the homeland he must identify and attempt to neutralize all hostile Islamic radicals, not just the relative few who were directly involved in 9-11.

The Next Post in this series will detail recently discovered connections between Saddam and international terrorist organizations that threaten America.

2 Comments so far

  1. […] BoomerJeff added an interesting post on What Would Obama Do? Part II […]

  2. […] Read the rest of this great post here […]