For those who supported George W. Bush's treatment of foreign tyrants and terrorists it's hard to criticize President Obama's treatment of the same, except for his hypocrisy. After campaigning as the anti-Bush and blaming the "failed policies of the past", i.e. Bush's policies, for America's diminished standing in the world, Mr. Obama has pretty much transformed himself from the anti-Bush into the über-Bush.
He stayed with Bush's plan in Iraq, ramped up the predator strikes on terrorists in Pakistan and surged troop strength in Afghanistan. He has retained both the Patriot act and, as far as I know, Bush's policy of prisoner rendition. He has refused to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and has recently resumed military tribunals for terrorists there. Next we'll be reading, perhaps, that he's given the go-ahead for "enhanced interrogations".
There's rich irony in all this. Having persuaded over 50% of American voters in 2008 that he was the avatar of hope and change, American families are less hopeful after two years of Mr. Obama than they've been in thirty five years, and the only change we've seen is in our national debt, the unemployment numbers, and the cost of fuel. Everything else, including our forays into the Middle East, seems to have remained the same.
One wonders where the anti-war left is now that Mr. Obama appears to be preparing to wage war against Libya. If George W. Bush had no justification for going to war with Iraq, as most on the left claimed, surely President Obama has far less justification for going to war with Libya. Who does Libya threaten other than the rebels who are seeking to depose Moammar Qaddafi?
Perhaps the justice of a war, in the eyes of the left, is a matter not of the actual circumstances leading up to a conflict but rather of who is in the White House giving the order to commence hostilities. I suppose we'll soon find out if that's true.