How is this a repudiation? It looks more like an extreme caricature.
Note that Bush got Congressional approval. He had several UN resolutions that went much further than Obama's only resolution. Bush had more partners.
You may disagree with Bush's reasons, but he was far more clear than Obama. Remember, Obama has said that Gaddafi must go, yet also states that they're not using force to oust him.
> Not to mention the fact we're ignoring an almost identical situation in Bahrain.
And other places. Iraq and Afghanistan were distinguishable in Bush's stated reasons. Obama's reasons apply far more generally, yet ....
Right. But you're looking at this from your perspective and not The President's perspective.
President Obama has made it clear in his criticisms that he believes the Bush administration was wrong because it didn't consult the International community. As you cited he clearly believes the International community's approval is above even that of his own congress. So in his mind going to the UN and getting a resolution is a repudiation of Bush who went without one (and in doing so snubbed the political body President Obama seems to have the most respect for)
So I'm not giving an opinion one way or the other on whether Obama's actions are in fact a repudiation of President Bush. I'm simply saying that was clearly his goal.
> President Obama has made it clear in his criticisms that he believes the Bush administration was wrong because it didn't consult the International community. As you cited he clearly believes the International community's approval is above even that of his own congress. So in his mind going to the UN and getting a resolution is a repudiation of Bush who went without one (and in doing so snubbed the political body President Obama seems to have the most respect for)
The problem with that analysis is that Bush had more approval from the "International Community" than Obama did.
As I wrote, Bush had multiple UN resolutions in support of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has one, and it had more absentions than Bush's.
In addition, Bush's initial Iraq and Afghanistan coalitions had more members than Obama had at the start of Libya. And, Obama has already lost one.
How is this a repudiation? It looks more like an extreme caricature.
Note that Bush got Congressional approval. He had several UN resolutions that went much further than Obama's only resolution. Bush had more partners.
You may disagree with Bush's reasons, but he was far more clear than Obama. Remember, Obama has said that Gaddafi must go, yet also states that they're not using force to oust him.
> Not to mention the fact we're ignoring an almost identical situation in Bahrain.
And other places. Iraq and Afghanistan were distinguishable in Bush's stated reasons. Obama's reasons apply far more generally, yet ....