President Obama, of course, throughout his entire career, has possessed not one ounce of credibility on matters of war and peace. Recall that as a candidate for president in 2007 he was farther to the left and more antiwar than any other Democrat seeking the party's nomination. His hypocrisy on America's national security interests is a total abomination and the supreme miracle feat of political posturing and opportunism. Disgusting.
Secretary of State John Kerry this week denounced Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons as a "moral atrocity" of world historical proportions, and has implored the international community to stand up to Syria's assault on "civilization." But in 2004, as Democrat Party standard-bearer for the office of the presidency, running against vigorous war leader President George W. Bush, he denounced the war in Iraq after having voted in 2002 to authorize the deployment as member of the U.S. Senate: "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."
And now we have the words of that arch antiwar Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the current House Minority Leader in Congress, and total hypocrite on anything dealing with the nation's security.
At WaPo, "Pelosi urges military response to Syria."
And at Politico, "Nancy Pelosi the hawk tells President Obama to act on Syria" (via Memeorandum):
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pressed top administration officials Thursday night to take military action to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad in response to reports that he used chemical weapons in his nation’s ongoing civil war.Rank hypocrisy.
“It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security,” Pelosi said in a statement after the 90-minute conference call with members of the National Security Council and 26 high-ranking lawmakers.
Pelosi boasts perhaps the most consistent antiwar war record of any current member of Congress (see Wikipedia). In 1991 she opposed the U.S. move to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, a war that would ultimately be approved by an overwhelming margin in the Congress, and would win Security Council backing at the United Nations (heralding a "new world order" in the emerging post-Cold War international system). Pelosi also voted against the 2002 Iraq war authorization, and in 2007 she opposed the Bush administration's new counterinsurgency program in Iraq --- "the surge" --- that within a year had stemmed the tide of terrorist violence and allowed the United States to wind down the war.
But in 2013 Pelosi is all gung-ho, arguing that Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons is so egregious that even a "war weary" nation should fall in line behind the administration's headlong rush to conflict.
Sorry, but this is extreme partisanship and political posturing of the worst kind. It's no wonder that support for Congress and this president is at historic lows. This shameless Democrat Party warmongering marks a new milestone in wag the dog political expediency.
See more on this from Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage, "Liberal Hypocrisy in Iraq and Syria":
Democrats vociferously opposed any plan to stop the flow of terrorists from Syria into Iraq. Now they are about to fight Assad anyway in support of their own twisted Muslim Brotherhood version of regime change.More at Memorandum.
The anti-war party has become the war party and in a supreme irony, its cause for a new war is the familiar one of stopping a Baath Party regime from using weapons of mass destruction against civilians.
Everything old is new again and every hypocrisy rises again to become policy. In New Hampshire, Howard Dean is reportedly sniffing around his presidential prospects and in Washington [Nancy Pelosi], John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and Barack Obama will begin a war that they were against… before they were for it.