In a recent exchange on my profile page on Facebook a friend, and I mean a real life friend, someone that I have known for decades and of whom I am exceedingly fond, made a typical attack from the left when he avowed:
“We saw Bush/Cheney's open-hearted outreach at the Superdome in New Orleans. The only minority group the GOP is interested in is the Fortune 500.”
In response I countered:
“Not so my brother--Bush spent more money on entitlement programs for the poor than any President in history. Bush also sent more money in aid to Africa than any President in history.”
My friend scoffed so I provided the documented proof of what I’d asserted in regards to entitlements and Africa, which was met with the also typical leftist disregard for facts in favor of what they want to believe. As I stated in the thread: Facts are to a liberal what garlic is to Count Dracula - Something to be avoided at all costs.
The truth of the matter is that in Africa, Bush was adored because his policies saved legions of lives there. The liberal championed banning of DDT, killed millions in Africa. Bush countered that with a program that distributed Mosquito netting all over the continent, protecting people from malaria and other diseases that were wreaking havoc on the population. President, George W. Bush was also responsible for sending over an enormous amount of money to fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS.
It is interesting to note that one of Mr. Obama’s very first acts as President, was under cover of night, Barack Obama followed the lead of Bill Clinton and signed an order lifting the Mexico City Policy originally implemented by Ronald Reagan. The policy had been reinstated by George W. Bush before being again overturned by President Obama.
The Mexico City Policy banned the use of U.S. taxpayers dollars for funding abortions abroad. The majority of those funds for “family Planning” went towards aborting African babies. Bush sent money to save the lives of the African people, Son of Kenya, Obama sends money to end African lives.
Liberals would argue that aborting children in Africa alleviates suffering and eases tensions in a strapped land that cannot afford to feed it’s people. On Digital Publius. I often quote Romans 3:8 because within that passage we find encapsulated the essence of liberal wrongheadedness:
“And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.”
We are again facing difficult questions in the African nation of Libya where we are acting without clear mission or intent. Moreover, we also have no idea as to the true motives of those we’re aiding. Even the mainstream media has reported that many of the Libyan rebels are hardened Al Qaeda fighters who hate America. And we’re debating whether we should arm the Libyan rebels?
All this in contradistinction to the circumstances, which in 2007 President Obama himself said were necessary to engage in war:
“The president does not have the 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. History has shown us time and again...that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch.”
Yet, that is precisely what Obama did as president! For a person so adamantly against the prospects of a war without goals, Obama seems like “a greyhound in the slips, straining upon the start”. In no way, shape, or form could it be construed that Libya constitutes an “imminent threat” to our nation. Yet “In thunder and in earthquake, like a Jove”, Mr. Obama did act, and the military action was quickly conceived and prosecuted.
Not at all like a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Notwithstanding Libya in fact having no strategic value whatsoever for America, Libya does not even play a roll in America’s energy needs, the North African nation only provides 2% of our oil. Add to that a complete lack of Congressional input, let alone approval and it is a puzzlement how this all happened so fast.
As it pertains to the humanitarian motivation for our intervention, I can’t help but remember what the President wrote in his book “The Audacity of Hope.” Obama argued if our nation got involved with Iraq in a humanitarian endeavor without a well-established plan that the American people and the world could understand and support, the United State’s efforts would not be seen as legitimate.
At that time, President Obama even questioned: “Why invade Iraq and not North Korea or Burma? Why intervene in Bosnia and not Darfur?”
Why indeed? The question still remains even with a change in venue. Why Libya? why not Darfur or the Côte d'Ivoire? Well, in my estimation, the answer is foreign in origin: We are in a fight to aid our European friends. Bosom companions like France and Italy who procure the lion's share of Libya’s oil exports. We are not acting in Libya for our concerns, nor are we acting to help the Libyan rebels.
It seems likely; the French Connection offers a good reason why we are not acting to help the Ivory Coast as well. Not only does the Ivory Coast keep France knee deep in cocoa and swimming in coffee, recently off the small nation’s coast oil was discovered.
Adding interest for the French, in a current Ivory Coast election, the incumbent Laurent Gbagbo was defeated under questionable circumstances, prompting Gbagbo to refuse to abdicate power. Coincidentally, I am currently building a website for a local lawyer who happens to be from the Ivory Coast. I asked him what he thought of the circumstances in his homeland.
My friend declared his loyalty to Gbagbo and stated that the French backed and supplied Alassane Ouattara, (the “winner” of what my friend called the “corrupt” election for Ivory Coast President) and his supporters are murderous thugs. My friend’s words confirmed all of the reports that I’d read in international papers.
The French and the U.N. backed Ouattara, stand by while Ouattara’s forces slaughter civilians by the thousands as they attempt to force Gbabgo to step down. In fact, President Obama’s United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice has also gone on record asking Gbabgo to step down.
Meanwhile Gbabgo’s requests for a recount and an investigation into the election have been ignored.
The U.N. and the E.U. make statements suggesting they fear Gbabgo is responsible for human rights abuses. That’s good enough for the French. However, we know that Ouattara’s thugs are murdering people.
How the left can continually be wrong when it comes to Africa is beyond me. Especially when one considers this administration’s close familial ties to the continent. As it stands, the emerging facts seem to suggest that we are not acting in North Africa because of any imminent threat to our nation, which was what Senator Obama forcefully proclaimed was necessary in 2007.
Who knows what’s really going on in the Ivory Coast, or anywhere in Africa for that matter. We are not acting for any strategic reason that I can fathom, or even for what Libya has to offer. It seems that America is in Libya because the European Union wants us to be.
I am reminded of the immortal words of the Bard as King Harry warns the Bishop of Canterbury to count the consequences before inciting the realm to war.
“Therefore take heed how you impawn our person, How you awake our sleeping sword of war: We charge you, in the name of God, take heed; For never two such kingdoms did contend Without much fall of blood; whose guiltless drops Are every one a woe, a sore complaint”
How now Mr. President - Why act in Libya and not the Côte d'Ivoire?
Digital Publius
