Dox47 wrote:
Delphiki wrote:
So what crime(s) did Obama commit that Bush would not be at fault for also?
I'm pretty sure Bush didn't telepathically force Obama to attack Libya in violation of international law, to name but one. Let's not forget those extrajudicial assassinations that he assures us are legal, but has classified the rationale behind either.
Why are you slitting your own throat, and proving Delphiki right by mentioning Libya?
Maybe you didnt understand his question.
He asked "what crimes did obama commit that bush did NOT ALSO COMMIT?"
Not "How did Obama repeat the SAME crimes of Bush?"
Understand now?
Did you ever hear of a place called "Iraq"?
Attacking a foriegn country under the guise of regime change is an example of what Delphiki is talking about- Obama repeating Bush's crimes (foriegn agression under the guise of liberation). Both used chicanery and trickery to get around international law.
The main difference between the overtrhow of Khaddaffi, and that of Hussein was that that of Saddam Hussien required american boots on the ground and american blood. Obama got rid of khaddaffi by letting the locals do the heavy lifting and most of the dying.
So...are you suggesting that obama be impeached for not getting ENOUGH american soldiers killed? That its better have americans die than locals? Because that about the only real difference between his and bush's inteventionist foriegn policies.