Gibbs: Obama on Syria More “Deliberative” Than Bush on Iraq

Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs joined the weekly panel on Meet the Press Sunday and played the role of cheerleader for his former boss as the debate over America’s involvement in Syria intensifies.  Still very much in BLAME-BUSH mode, Gibbs attempted multiple times to praise the current president’s decision making process by comparing and contrasting it with that of his predecessor.  The first attempt came around the 2:20 mark.

“This is a deliberative president.  In many ways, this president became the nominee of the party and the President of the United States as a reaction to the way we went into war without a rationale in Iraq.  So, this is a president that is acting very deliberately and I think believes our coalition and the breadth of it is strengthened when not just the commander-in-chief but the representatives of the people weigh in on behalf of intervention by the US military.”

A couple points I found rather amusing here.  And just for the sake of argument, try to ignore how you may feel or may have felt about Operation Iraqi Freedom – now or then.

First, Gibbs says this president is a deliberative president.  Does that mean Gibbs thinks that makes Obama unique?  Have the rest of them been gunslingers operating and decision making on a whim?  Have they taken our nation to war without debate and debate – both publicly and privately?

Second, Gibbs says this president was elected as a “reaction to the way we went into war without a rationale in Iraq.”  Correct me if I’m wrong here; but there was a stated “rationale” in Iraq as well.  It just proved to be wrong on at that whole “weapons of mass destruction” thing.  But again, correct me if I’m wrong.  Is the Obama administration not also relying upon the same intelligence community to develop a Syrian “rationale?”  Moreover, are we not also now relying upon assertions that the regime possesses WMD’s and has used chemical weapons against its own people?  Wasn’t that the cornerstone of the rationale behind Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So, Mr. Gibbs; how is President Obama’s Syria rationale different than Bush’s Iraq debacle?

(Skip ahead to the 10:25 mark…)  And watch his facial expressions before, during, and after…

Gibbs:  “Let’s understand the fundamental difference from Iraq.  We know there are chemical weapons and they have been used.  We’re still looking for the chemical weapons in Iraq.”

Kristol:  “Saddam used chemical weapons.”

Gibbs: “Right”

Kristol:  “Against his own citizens, actually.”

Kay:  “And the world did nothing.”

Kristol:  “The world did nothing; but we should have done something.”

Gibbs:  “But understand, for months we looked for rationale for Iraq.  We continued to look for that rationale for Iraq after we started a war with Iraq and still haven’t come up with the chemical weapons rationale… this is why the president was elected to be president – to do this in a different way.”

A few thoughts.  If you’re an Obama or Gibbs apologist, you’re probably going to read the transcript and say Hussein used chemical weapons at the end of the Iran-Iraq War and draw the conclusion that said use should not have been used as justification for a Bush Iraq “rationale.”  It was years before Bush II wanted to go a second round with Hussein.  Fair point.  It was dated evidence; but it was still evidence of a willingness to use chemical weapons if he had them in his possession.  The intelligence community led most – including many Democrats – to believe he still had weapons of mass destruction at his disposal, so the rationale seemed anything but rushed, unfounded, or non-deliberative.  After all, it was enough to convince both Houses of Congress.

Beyond that, have you seen any evidence that leads you to believe we’re any more certain about Assad’s capabilities or willingness?

That brings me to another ridiculous point raised by Gibbs – clearly still beaming from his part in Barack Obama’s meteoric ascent – “This is why the president was elected to be president – to do this in a different way.”  Where’s the difference?  Again, correct me if I’m wrong here.  Bush went to the United Nations in September of 2002 and called for action to be taken against Hussein.  Congress authorized Iraqi Freedom in October.  The invasion of Iraq didn’t begin until March of 2003.

Did Bush rush to go to war?  He too, sought authorization.  And waited five months before acting on that authorization.

Here we’re talking about taking action as soon as next week after Congress weighs in on the matter – with or without authorization.  Which president was supposed to be the “deliberative” one?

 
Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

The post Gibbs: Obama on Syria More “Deliberative” Than Bush on Iraq appeared first on REPUBLICAN REDEFINED.