Watching the Libyan conflict unfold is a study in contrasts. Consider the differences between the invasion of Iraq under President George W. Bush and the attack on Libya under President Obama. The differences between the two presidents and the response to their actions have been rather stark.
Months before the actual invasion of Iraq began, President Bush brought his argument to the American people, using speeches, interviews and administration-penned editorials for various news sources. President Bush tried to convince the American people of the necessity of his plan, and why.
By contrast, President Obama went to the UN and started taking action. He did not seek to convince anyone in the public of what he was doing, nor gain public support.
President Bush sought congressional approval for his military efforts, while President Obama did not even seem to consider it.
President Bush led the way, going to the UN to build a coalition of dozens of nations from nearly every continent on earth. President Obama went to the UN in response to bold leadership by the United Kingdom and France, waiting until someone else took the initiative.
Protesters began large, repeated, and loud protests against President Bush long before any actual military action took place. By contrast, protesters only started to complain about President Obama after the attacks had started, and they are not only few in number, but scattered. International A.N.S.W.E.R. has not staged huge rent-a-mob protests in any country.
Meanwhile, President Bush was called a “cowboy,” a rash and warmongering extremist leading the nation into a Vietnam-like quagmire, while President Obama is being praised for his diplomatic skills in getting so swift an agreement to U.S. action.
The media is supportive and protective of President Obama’s actions, with the New York Times running editorial after article about the need to stop Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and even remove him from power. Now that the military action has started, the pattern continues.
Perhaps the greatest contrast between President Obama and President Bush is that while the Bush team had a clearly laid out and prepared plan of action, what followed, and what would mean an end to US efforts, the Obama team seems to have nothing of the sort.
One cannot help wondering why it is – according to President Obama – that helping the people of Libya free themselves from a brutal dictator is so right that we must take military action, while freeing the people of Iraq from an even more brutal dictator who was supporting, training and harboring terrorists was such a moral atrocity.
The contrasts here are significant and unavoidable, but few in the press seem to want to even consider them.
